Mason Boyne Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Rangers still haven't sent the £20 they owe me ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Even the judges that supported Dave's lawyers' argument acknowledged that there was a case to answer, and both praised HMRC for the rigour of their investigations. Hector joins the ever-expanding list of innocent punters blamed for your club's messy suicide. On the other hand, all three judges noted that your club were obstructive and unhelpful; one actually concluded that your representatives intentionally attempted to mislead, delay and obstruct the inquiry. Which is to say - HMRC actually look pretty good here, having argued in good faith and lost out only because they wrongly assumed that they could prove the whole thing was a scam, by proving that a substantial proportion of it was a scam. They were wrong. Your old club, OTOH, stands accused of dishonestly attempting to hide the truth from the authorities, and that's just for starters. I've asked before and I'll ask again - why not take out your anger on Sir Dave - the man chiefly responsible for killing your club - rather than joining a big circle-jerk of rage about Hector and some bloggers? Some Rangers fans have been criticising Murray for a long, long time. Their numbers have grown and grown. That doesn't mean that others can't be looked at too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Rangers still haven't sent the £20 they owe me ! Only people living in Scotland are eligible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Even the judges that supported Dave's lawyers' argument acknowledged that there was a case to answer, and both praised HMRC for the rigour of their investigations. Hector joins the ever-expanding list of innocent punters blamed for your club's messy suicide. On the other hand, all three judges noted that your club were obstructive and unhelpful; one actually concluded that your representatives intentionally attempted to mislead, delay and obstruct the inquiry. Which is to say - HMRC actually look pretty good here, having argued in good faith and lost out only because they wrongly assumed that they could prove the whole thing was a scam, by proving that a substantial proportion of it was a scam. They were wrong. Your old club, OTOH, stands accused of dishonestly attempting to hide the truth from the authorities, and that's just for starters. I've asked before and I'll ask again - why not take out your anger on Sir Dave - the man chiefly responsible for killing your club - rather than joining a big circle-jerk of rage about Hector and some bloggers? Firdt of all,there has been a lot of anger directed at David Murray on everything that has happened at the club. Now answer this;if as you state that HMRC "look pretty good" why did they not look so good at the first tier tribunal when the finding went in the PLCs favour. All the arguments being put forward by you still does not change the verdict nor indeed does all three judges noting that the PLC was unhelpful. That opinion of theirs still had no bearing on the verdict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Only people living in Scotland are eligible. But if you look at it as a UK issue then we as UK taxpayers are all owed £2. If i get my £2 i'm donating it to Enricos fighting fund for creditors.EFFFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Firdt of all,there has been a lot of anger directed at David Murray on everything that has happened at the club. Now answer this;if as you state that HMRC "look pretty good" why did they not look so good at the first tier tribunal when the finding went in the PLCs favour. All the arguments being put forward by you still does not change the verdict nor indeed does all three judges noting that the PLC was unhelpful. That opinion of theirs still had no bearing on the verdict. HMRC do not look 'pretty good'. They lost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 How can a lost case that cost taxpayers £5M be considered anything else but a complete and utter failure? Think of all the schools and hospitals that could have been built Because a) All the judges concluded that there was a concrete case to answer, not least because your club openly admitted to around thirty instances of tax evasion avoidance and were found guilty of several more, and because b) it's HMRC's duty and obligation to pursue serious cases of tax evasion, wherever they occur and because c) your old club has only avoided a brutal judicial shafting because two of the judges somehow concluded that the thirty-odd cases of tax evasion avoidance that your old club admitted to, plus the ones you were found liable for, didn't mean that the entire thing was deliberately set up as a scam. It really is hilarious that anyone would try to pin some kind of culpability on HMRC here. They've done their duty to the British taxpayer to the best of their ability. Your old club, on the other hand, has benefitted from a small judicial miracle - your legal team have somehow managed to polish the turd that is your old club's crooked financial dealings. You'd be better spending your time thanking them than bashing Hector. The guilty parties in Rangers' demise are the men who picked up all those fat EBT gifts "loans". That's it - not Hector, or the diddy clubs, or the football authorities, or some bloggers. Your owners, directors and players killed your club with their sticky fingers, their mismanagement and their refusal to take responsibility for their own actions. Pretending otherwise is hilarious, but it does give me a bit of a chuckle so please, continue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Nothing is more hilarious than your denial in seeing that HMRC should have never brought this case in the 1st place, proof of this can be found when they lost the tribunal I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here. HMRC losing the tribunal proves only one thing - that two out of three judges weren't convinced by the proof that HMRC were able to present*. Again - the court does not decide whether Rangers actually diddled the taxpayer. The court decides whether HMRC can prove that Rangers diddled the taxpayer. HMRC thought they had a strong case - they were wrong. Happens every day, all over the world. Nonetheless, let's think about this proposition you're making. You're saying that prosecutions that fail are proof that no prosecution should ever have been brought, because prosecutions are very expensive. Have you thought through the implications of that? Maybe you should get on the phone to Crown Office - they lose tens of thousands of cases every year, after all. If Crown Office think they've got a 60% chance of convicting you for murder, should they sack it off because it's not worth the expense? And recall here - HMRC are required to chase up proven tax dodgers** like your old club. Really, get a grip. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no prosecution should be brought unless there is a 100% chance of conviction. You're just hilariously wrong, aren't you? *When considering this point, it's worth recalling that one of the judges complained that your club were intentionally withholding evidence. **Your old club are proven tax dodgers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here. HMRC losing the tribunal proves only one thing - that two out of three judges weren't convinced by the proof that HMRC were able to present*. Again - the court does not decide whether Rangers actually diddled the taxpayer. The court decides whether HMRC can prove that Rangers diddled the taxpayer. HMRC thought they had a strong case - they were wrong. Happens every day, all over the world. Nonetheless, let's think about this proposition you're making. You're saying that prosecutions that fail are proof that no prosecution should ever have been brought, because prosecutions are very expensive. Have you thought through the implications of that? Maybe you should get on the phone to Crown Office - they lose tens of thousands of cases every year, after all. If Crown Office think they've got a 60% chance of convicting you for murder, should they sack it off because it's not worth the expense? And recall here - HMRC are required to chase up proven tax dodgers** like your old club. Really, get a grip. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no prosecution should be brought unless there is a 100% chance of conviction. You're just hilariously wrong, aren't you? *When considering this point, it's worth recalling that one of the judges complained that your club were intentionally withholding evidence. **Your old club are proven tax dodgers. No, you are wrong (not for the first time). The burden of proof rested on the appellants (i.e. Murray Group) and not on HMRC (page 38, para 159). Thus, Murray Group were able to provide sufficient proof to convince the Tribunal of the legality of the EBT arrangements. Edited November 23, 2012 by Paquis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) No, you are wrong (not for the first time). The burden of proof rested on the appellants (i.e. Murray Group) and not on HMRC (page 38, para 159). Thus, Murray Group were able to provide sufficient proof to convince the Tribunal of the legality of the EBT arrangements. Zing, very good point, fully conceded. Previous statements to this effect should be reversed - the court doesn't decide whether Rangers in reality ripped off the taxpayer; the court decides whether Rangers were able to prove to the court's satisfaction that their scheme was legal. They did so successfully, on a majority. Nonetheless, the point I'm stressing here is that the court don't have magical mind-reading powers to decree what did or did not happen. They're there to rule on the evidence presented. Edited November 23, 2012 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I do not blame Rangers for not cooperating, they were wrongly accused of dodging £49M, If someone accused me wrongly of stealing £49M I would probably tell them to f**k off as well Perhaps you may be right, HMRC should investigate possible tax evasion, but they decided to use bully boy tactics, they basically took the descision to stop investigating and hit Rangers wrongly with a £49M tax bill, it was at this point they failed, the demand was simply incorrect, it cannot be argued with, it was the demand that caused the damage Too much 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 How did Rangers still land up in debt even though they were avoiding tax ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here. HMRC losing the tribunal proves only one thing - that two out of three judges weren't convinced by the proof that HMRC were able to present*. Again - the court does not decide whether Rangers actually diddled the taxpayer. The court decides whether HMRC can prove that Rangers diddled the taxpayer. HMRC thought they had a strong case - they were wrong. Happens every day, all over the world. Nonetheless, let's think about this proposition you're making. You're saying that prosecutions that fail are proof that no prosecution should ever have been brought, because prosecutions are very expensive. Have you thought through the implications of that? Maybe you should get on the phone to Crown Office - they lose tens of thousands of cases every year, after all. If Crown Office think they've got a 60% chance of convicting you for murder, should they sack it off because it's not worth the expense? And recall here - HMRC are required to chase up proven tax dodgers** like your old club. Really, get a grip. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no prosecution should be brought unless there is a 100% chance of conviction. You're just hilariously wrong, aren't you? *When considering this point, it's worth recalling that one of the judges complained that your club were intentionally withholding evidence. **Your old club are proven tax dodgers. But the PLC were not proven tax dodgers at anytime,HMRC gave an assessment of tax owed,the PLC appealed that assessment and subsequently that appeal was upheld. Verdict in favour of The Rangers Football Club Plc. So in that respect the PLC were not proven tax dodgers,if you are alluding to Whyte withholding PAYE then you are changing track somewhat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) I filled up a bit reading that. I had to stand outside in thunder and lightning waiting for the wind to sweep the hair from my face in a suitably heroic way. Then, suitably inspired, I got through three boxes of very manly tissues to wipe the tears from my eyes - but, I struggled on. Despite all of that - and a suitably self-indulgent giggle - the point is perfectly valid. I typed up an abridged weegie version, too. It goes like this. Haw! Plastics, diddies - fuckin' roon ye! Edited November 23, 2012 by Bendarroch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Nonetheless, the point I'm stressing here is that the court don't have magical mind-reading powers to decree what did or did not happen. They're there to rule on the evidence presented. Mibbes WKR Bond - and those who took his credible persona oh-so seriously - couldn't get his 'upfront and centre' evidence to the table in time. We'll never know now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Cheats ... pure and simple no matter what the verdict was. Awwww, petal... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 No Tedi .. they were not wrong in issuing the tax bill .. Old Rangers were wrong not to face up to it and insist on the courts sooner to settle the matter ... but we all know why they chose to try and barter. That's why they they chose to have secretive side letters and fail to inform anyone as to what they were up to ... Cheats ... pure and simple no matter what the verdict was. When HMRC issued the tax bill, they were fishing. Pure and simple. It happens quite often and across a range of companies. A business faced with such a bill then has a choice. They either try to reach a compromise settlement with HMRC or they engage extremely expensive tax lawyers and accountants and fight it. Murray Group offered a settlement. That is fairly normal practice. What is interesting is why HMRC chose not to accept it. Clearly an error of judgement on their part. But it happens. The firm I used to work for (retired from actually) was audited by the IRS in New York. The IRS leaked information to the Wall St. journal saying that we were going to have to pay millions in back tax. The result ...... we won and they had to pay us around $10 million. I personally got $12k back. The side-letter are only relevant if they provide evidence that Murray Group was avoiding tax. They did not. Whether they were secretive or not is neither here nor there. Most businesses do not routinely divulge all their correspondence into the public domain. Your allegation of cheating is not supported by any facts. It is clearly wishful thinking on your part. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 They also turned down a £10m offer from Rangers, so HMRC have cost the UK taxpayer a whopping £15 million. Will nobody think of the poor hospitals and schools. £15 million is but a starting point for HMRC's reckless approach to the public purse. How much could be added to the sums if you consider the revenues HMRC have lost by forcing Rangers to downsize? Rico will be catatonic when he realises what's happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Rangers did cheat to win the scottish cup final in May 30th 2009. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 No Tedi .. they were not wrong in issuing the tax bill .. Old Rangers were wrong not to face up to it and insist on the courts sooner to settle the matter ... but we all know why they chose to try and barter. That's why they they chose to have secretive side letters and fail to inform anyone as to what they were up to ... Cheats...pure and simple,no matter what the verdict was.. So no matter what a legal verdict is you will ignore that simply because it doesn't meet with your opinion. Having that outlook destroys any credibility you have and highlights your bigoted attitude towards the club. So in that respect your opinion is worthless. 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.