pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Presumably they can show HMRC the repayments coming in and they can just forget that whole Tribunal thing. Totally. It's like mega-win-win for der orkenkind. Auld Hector is off their backs and they pocket 48m spondoolies. Strange that they've not done this yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well if they had any of these letters i woud have thought the court case might have been a good time to produce them. What makes you think they haven't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well if they had any of these letters i woud have thought the court case might have been a good time to produce them. My apologies, I didn't realize you were party to the evidence. What are they waiting for given there is none? "Let's just spin this out for a while to keep everyone guessing, that blog on it is hilarious"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Presumably they can show HMRC the repayments coming in and they can just forget that whole Tribunal thing. Banks lend people money everyday that doesn't get paid back...Being bumped isn't a crime.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Banks lend people money everyday that doesn't get paid back...Being bumped isn't a crime.. Yes, but there's at the very least the assumption that banks actually get some of the money back from loans. I wonder how much of these 'loans' Renegers doled out have been paid back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I wonder how much of these 'loans' Renegers doled out have been paid back? From what i am led to believe not very much...You just cant trust anybody these days 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 From what i am led to believe not very much...You just cant trust anybody these days To be fair, this time last year, you were led to believe that Chraig Whhyte was a billionaire, so it's entirely possibly Renegers are indeed calling in all of the loans. Or none at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 BUT THERE IS NO PROOF. NONE. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 BUT THERE IS NO PROOF. NONE. Yup 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Banks lend people money everyday that doesn't get paid back...Being bumped isn't a crime.. Pretending to lend it in order to avoid paying tax is. The thing is Rangers have been caught by making it plain that they didn't expect to be paid back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Pretending to lend it in order to avoid paying tax is. The thing is Rangers have been caught by making it plain that they didn't expect to be paid back. Prove it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Thought the point of the case was everybody agreed the EBTs existed, and they are loans but it is whether the scheme in the Rangers case was administered properly - ie were they discretionary as required or were they regulary supplementing the acknowledged contractual salaries as a way to avoid tax. Everybody has acknowledged they exist - its were they done right is the arguement. And going by anything administered and requiring due diligence and care in Scottish Football in the last few years what are the odds on them being handled correctly............ Edited March 21, 2012 by MEADOWXI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Prove it. I'm not the HMRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebud Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Were the EBTs not given as 'Loans'? I thought the idea was you made these 'loans' out to the players but the understanding was they never paid them back.. The problem Rangers had was they gave the agents letters saying that the 'Loans' did not have to be paid back..which then made them payments...HMRCs problem is they coud not produce any of these letters during the Big Tax Case. I think this is where your main issues lie, if the letter exists and states the 'Loans' do not have to be paid back then this letter could be deemed to be "contractual". If the "EBT letter" is not mentioned in the players contract then this could constitute the "double contract" scenario that is being investigated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I'm not the HMRC. Ah, you see, you can't, because there is no proof. The truth is out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think this is where your main issues lie, if the letter exists and states the 'Loans' do not have to be paid back then this letter could be deemed to be "contractual". If the "EBT letter" is not mentioned in the players contract then this could constitute the "double contract" scenario that is being investigated. it is surely going to be impossible to prove double contracts unless someone involved in it comes clean? even if rangers lose the big tax case the findings of the tribunal will remain private, the sfa can't ask hmrc to hand over evidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The truth is out there. Prove it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 it is surely going to be impossible to prove double contracts unless someone involved in it comes clean? even if rangers lose the big tax case the findings of the tribunal will remain private, the sfa can't ask hmrc to hand over evidence. I think the Tax Tribunal Service/Chamber generally publish tribunal findings 10 working days after the two parties are informed, even in closed court cases such as this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollymac Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Prove it. I can't, it's in an envelope that is locked safely away in the late Alex Cameron's drawer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 it is surely going to be impossible to prove double contracts unless someone involved in it comes clean? even if rangers lose the big tax case the findings of the tribunal will remain private, the sfa can't ask hmrc to hand over evidence. You're right we would be right back to the Lennon suspension scenario. Rangers would bring in lawyers to say that EBTs were not playing contracts and were within the rules. The SFA would need to lawyer up costing untold thousands of pounds with no guarantee they would win any legal dispute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.