youngsy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The HMRC gave Rangers a hefty bill did they not to which Rangers appealed against it did they not ? That implies that the HMRC were not happy about Rangers giving out so called loans you do not pay back doesn't it ? and declared it illegal to give out loans you do not have to pay back for future EBT scams. It is now illegal to give out loans that you do not pay pack. I'm amazed that Rangers fans ignore the fact that Rangers have been found guilty on at least 5 of these EBT charges but claim complete vindication that they are legal !. Do enjoy the M40 more often I'm amazed that you consistently try to ignore the fact that the PLC were exonerated by a majority verdict by a legal tribunal that presided over this case and deliberated for months before reaching conclusion. So here's the question; which party did the FTTT find for,The Rangers Football Club PLC or HMRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The HMRC gave Rangers a hefty bill did they not to which Rangers appealed against it did they not ? That implies that the HMRC were not happy about Rangers giving out so called loans you do not pay back doesn't it ? and declared it illegal to give out loans you do not have to pay back for future EBT scams. It is now illegal to give out loans that you do not pay pack. I'm amazed that Rangers fans ignore the fact that Rangers have been found guilty on at least 5 of these EBT charges but claim complete vindication that they are legal !. Do enjoy the M40 more often The M40 can be a right b*****d - especially as I can come off at either J2 or J4 but don't hear about a crash until I've passed the Beaconsfield junction. I'd remind you that HMRC lost their case against Rangers. You either missed that news or want to keep ignoring it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm amazed that you consistently try to ignore the fact that the PLC were exonerated by a majority verdict by a legal tribunal that presided over this case and deliberated for months before reaching conclusion. So here's the question; which party did the FTTT find for,The Rangers Football Club PLC or HMRC. f**k off with your reasonableness Youngsy. Oh and can somone cue an ostrich 'head in the sand' pic just for Hellbhoy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm amazed that you consistently try to ignore the fact that the PLC were exonerated by a majority verdict by a legal tribunal that presided over this case and deliberated for months before reaching conclusion. So here's the question; which party did the FTTT find for,The Rangers Football Club PLC or HMRC. A lot of back and forth on this one tonight - so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here: The FTTT found in rangers' favour in a large proportion (not all) of cases. The FTTT found against rangers in a sizable minority of cases - reportedly those where all paperwork was available. A number of cases were admitted as liable for tax by rangers. The verdict was not unanimous, and eyebrows were apparently* raised at the extent of the dissenting opinion in the published verdict. The verdict is subject to appeal. Have I got that right? Now, the SPL Commission has got absolutely bugger all, IMO, to do with the BTC. Except for the fact that the Commission will have all the information from the BTC to use alongside its own findings when it tries to reach a decision. *What I've heard/read - I'm not a legal expert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Can I make a little observation on the chart? It looks like there has been a bigger increase than the bars actually represent. It is an increase of 96 in total from 2010 compared to 2012. When you see the difference between the 2010 as set against the 2011 figure, it looks like a small decrease. Not made to scale I would suggest. Who ever made it obviously didnt use Excel It's a truly fucking great chart - not least because it's got plastics with spreadsheets and photoshop sweating buckets to prove the scale is 'wrong'. Rangers go to Div 3 - plastics and diddies predict crowds of 10-15,000. Rangers sell over 38,000 season tickets - plastics deploy statisticians to deconstruct a chart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 It's a truly fucking great chart - not least because it's got plastics with spreadsheets and photoshop sweating buckets to prove the scale is 'wrong'. Rangers go to Div 3 - plastics and diddies predict crowds of 10-15,000. Rangers sell over 38,000 season tickets - plastics deploy statisticians to deconstruct a chart. ST sales at ibrox show an increase of less than 100 - for what amounts to a BOGOF offer. I'll see your and raise you a 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 f**k off with your reasonableness Youngsy. Oh and can somone cue an ostrich 'head in the sand' pic just for Hellbhoy? First of all we have Denboy stating that "a large number of cases were admitted to" when in fact the sum total accepted having discrepancies by the PLC was 5,hardly a large number,then hellboy trying to spin the verdict against the PLC. About time they accepted that the FTTT found in favour of the PLC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) It is now illegal to give out loans that you do not pay pack. Is it f**k. Such are the dangers facing ames tapers and jannies when they start making mental claims about legalities. Edited January 16, 2013 by Bendarroch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 It's a truly fucking great chart - not least because it's got plastics with spreadsheets and photoshop sweating buckets to prove the scale is 'wrong'. Rangers go to Div 3 - plastics and diddies predict crowds of 10-15,000. Rangers sell over 38,000 season tickets - plastics deploy statisticians to deconstruct a chart. Ben, even worse is their desperation to make up a scale. They are trying to show that they even heard of Descartes such is their need to justify themselves. The plastic mindset is this: "No worry that we're in a failed league. No worry that we seek solace in the broad arms of The SFL. No worries that even our ST holders don't turn up to watch us. Let's just photoshop a chart to stick it up the ****." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 ST sales at ibrox show an increase of less than 100 - for what amounts to a BOGOF offer. I'll see your and raise you a As if you don't get the point - Rangers sold more in Div 3 than in the last SPL. Did you seriously expect our club to charge the same? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ben, even worse is their desperation to make up a scale. They are trying to show that they even heard of Descartes such is their need to justify themselves. The plastic mindset is this: "No worry that we're in a failed league. No worry that we seek solace in the broad arms of The SFL. No worries that even our ST holders don't turn up to watch us. Let's just photoshop a chart to stick it up the ****." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 A lot of back and forth on this one tonight - so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here: The FTTT found in rangers' favour in a large proportion (not all) of cases. The FTTT found against rangers in a sizable minority of cases - reportedly those where all paperwork was available. A number of cases were admitted as liable for tax by rangers. The verdict was not unanimous, and eyebrows were apparently* raised at the extent of the dissenting opinion in the published verdict. The verdict is subject to appeal. Have I got that right? Now, the SPL Commission has got absolutely bugger all, IMO, to do with the BTC. Except for the fact that the Commission will have all the information from the BTC to use alongside its own findings when it tries to reach a decision. *What I've heard/read - I'm not a legal expert. HMRC have applied for permission to appeal,as of yet this hasn't been granted,as far as i'm aware and by all accounts they can only appeal under a point of law. I may be wrong here and tbh i can't be arsed searching but wasn't it 30 cases found in favour for the PLC and as said 5 against. Certainly not a large number as previously quoted. The SPL Commission has got nothing to do with the EBT case solely in a football context but there may well be pertinent points in the EBT finding that might be referred to by both parties i would imagine. I would think though that having had the tribunal finding in the PLC favour that this would be used by the PLC legal team against the Commission investigation. Only my opinion of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 1358367436[/url]' post='6991106']Ben, even worse is their desperation to make up a scale. They are trying to show that they even heard of Descartes such is their need to justify themselves. The plastic mindset is this: "No worry that we're in a failed league. No worry that we seek solace in the broad arms of The SFL. No worries that even our ST holders don't turn up to watch us. Let's just photoshop a chart to stick it up the ****." This failed league didn't really bother you until your team weren't in it though, eh? Last time Rangers won the SPL were you feeling a bit hollow amid the celebrations at winning a failed league? Course you weren't . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 For Rangers fans here ! If as you say that Rangers won the BTC and Rangers dispensed the loans legally ! then why the fcuk are Rangers still not using EBT's to pay their players and publish these discretionary payments in their yearly accounts ? Could it be that it would be illegal to do so ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 As if you don't get the point - Rangers sold more in Div 3 than in the last SPL. Did you seriously expect our club to charge the same? Of course I get the point - I am simply pointing out that there may be different factors contributing to the number of sales, other than blind devotion. Half-price footy and the chance to say "I was one of the New Pioneers" would do for a start. I may be wrong, of course, as I am not an expert in either Govan Economics or The History Of rangers And The rangers. Although, given the confusion over the founding date of the club, I'm not alone in that last one.... Are there any other clubs who have changed their foundation date the way rangers did? Serious question, BTW - it would stop us cynical diddies thinking it was just because you knew the club wasn't going to make 140 years... It's interesting to note that, if you subtract the ST amount from ibrox gates, they've actually dropped by a pretty large amount since the start of the season - by more than our average gate, in fact. So, not that many, but it's a consistent drop game to game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ben, even worse is their desperation to make up a scale. They are trying to show that they even heard of Descartes such is their need to justify themselves. The plastic mindset is this: "No worry that we're in a failed league. No worry that we seek solace in the broad arms of The SFL. No worries that even our ST holders don't turn up to watch us. Let's just photoshop a chart to stick it up the ****." Are you descarting the possibility that he was making a valid point? Sorry, i'll get ma coat 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 First of all we have Denboy stating that "a large number of cases were admitted to" when in fact the sum total accepted having discrepancies by the PLC was 5,hardly a large number,then hellboy trying to spin the verdict against the PLC. About time they accepted that the FTTT found in favour of the PLC. You missed out the important 'h'. It's Dhenboy from what I recall. May even be Dhenbhoy. What dho Ih khnow abhout ahddhing ahn 'h' bhefhorhe ohr ahfther ah vhowhel. Oh and don't hold your breath. Even when the recently lamented SPL's 3-monkeys find in favours of Rangers (as justice should show) then the posters with the unnecessary 'h' in their name will still be crying foul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 This failed league didn't really bother you until your team weren't in it though. Well of course not, silly. The SPL has only fallen on its sword because it realises it is no longer viable without Rangers. This is why they are courting we SFL clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I prefer to continue my Latin theme and say, "cogito ergo sum" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Is it f**k. Such are the dangers facing ames tapers and jannies when they start making mental claims about legalities. Just like some of the Rangers fans on here quoting pish they cannot back up. Quote below from when EBT loans did not have to be paid back because it was by the offshore method and bypassed UK law. As an employee, the contractor would be paid a salary which would attract tax and NIC in the usual way. However the scheme provider would also make significant payments into a trust which would then loan the money to the contractor indefinitely – the loan element not being subject to tax and NIC. Now the changes to the loans since and EBT schemes have to be set up in the UK mainland so they cannot avoid the HMRC. The new legislation is designed to treat income such as interest free loans from an employee benefit trust as though it were employment income, so that income tax and National Insurance Contributions would then apply and be collectible by HMRC. Also one other change was that loans would have to be paid back in order to legally prove that it was a genuine loan and has a time scale for it to be paid back.Also the changes were applicable to EBT scams that were in use before the changes placing Rangers in the guilty section. 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.