Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[wunfellaff]

Your code may be right Ted, and still be over/under paid.

[wunfellaff]

Tell me about it, fuckers overcharged me £25 last year and £7 the year before, I just figured they found out I support Rangers.

Lol.....you paid tax.....

So we have one thing in common, unlike every other fecker on here we don't drive taxis

Edit....Dammit I do....bought an ex taxi a couple of years ago, its still got aerial and meter in it......Savile club here I come.....

Edited June 24, 2013 by wunfellaff

[AberdeenBud]

HMRC have been successful in winning cases concerning bonus payments but have lost a good few cases where they are disputing earning. The cases where Rangers admitted liability were for the payment of bonuses and there was some testimony about players wanting European bonuses as EBTs and being told that it couldn't happen.

HMRC still lost the bulk of the cases and there victories on bonus payment for which I think Rangers admitted liability were small in terms of the overall amount sought.

By the way has anyone looked into the code names used by the court and tried to work out who's who. Barry Ferguson gets outed by the judge and I think a few more. Surprised a blogger hasn't been on it writing a Cluedo style post of Who Killed Rangers

Agreed, I was merely correcting Tedi's usual penchant for myopic hyperbole when he stated 'HMRC have never won a case'.

There won't be any needs for codenames soon if Charlotte continues in her current vein. The fact that the FTTT was not a matter of public record is another in a long line of disgraceful instances in this omnishambles.

And I'm sure the Bears are delighted given their desire for openness, transparency and cleansing.

[54_titles_and_still_going_]

How obsessed are some people.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Ppi and excessive bank charges were both legal and regulated. But later deemed unfair.

Ebts were legal, but re my post on the last page, was it legal to have paid 200 grand a few months before they became an employee?

Ppi is still legal, so are bank charges. The rules that banks were found to breach were in place by the FSA at the time people bought ppi or were charged an excessive amount. You can only claim for ppi if it was missold and claim back bank charges if they were unreasonable as determined in judicial review. The ppi case was brought by the FSA ombudsman who recognised that banks were operating outside of the regulators guidelines

As for your second part, I'll assume you mean via an EBT. If someone isn't an employee then they shouldn't be able to have an Employee Benefit Trust, it seems obvious.

[AberdeenBud]

Ppi is still legal, so are bank charges. The rules that banks were found to breach were in place by the FSA at the time people bought ppi or were charged an excessive amount. You can only claim for ppi if it was missold and claim back bank charges if they were unreasonable as determined in judicial review. The ppi case was brought by the FSA ombudsman who recognised that banks were operating outside of the regulators guidelines

As for your second part, I'll assume you mean via an EBT. If someone isn't an employee then they shouldn't be able to have an Employee Benefit Trust, it seems obvious.

Just as there was nothing wrong with EBT's as long as they were administered and ran correctly.

According to Hedi Poon and HMRC Old Club's wasn't, the UTTT will be the next (and possibly final) legal stage to express their view on the legality of Sir Minty's EBT wheeze.

[wunfellaff]

Those things were always illegal, it just took some time before someone investigated and won a judgement. Until the loophole was closed EBTs were legal, tax rules change all the time and normally written by arseholes who are then recruited by top accounting firms which helps them avoid tax by creating convoluted schemes to exploit loopholes they basically created

Ppi is still legal, so are bank charges. The rules that banks were found to breach were in place by the FSA at the time people bought ppi or were charged an excessive amount. You can only claim for ppi if it was missold and claim back bank charges if they were unreasonable as determined in judicial review. The ppi case was brought by the FSA ombudsman who recognised that banks were operating outside of the regulators guidelines

As for your second part, I'll assume you mean via an EBT. If someone isn't an employee then they shouldn't be able to have an Employee Benefit Trust, it seems obvious.

So "both things were always illegal" becomes " ppi is still legal and so are bank charges "

And second part, why yes it does.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just as there was nothing wrong with EBT's as long as they were administered and ran correctly.

According to Hedi Poon and HMRC Old Club's wasn't, the UTTT will be the next (and possibly final) legal stage to express their view on the legality of Sir Minty's EBT wheeze.

I enjoyed Hedi Poon's dissent. It was very fun to read. Her incredulity at the shear brazenness of the scheme was great and her dismay that HMRC lawyers were incompetent in that they never argued the overall scheme was a sham. Unfortunately her arguments have no real legal standing.

I wonder how HMRC will shape their arguments on appeal having already conceded the main point that the scheme was legitimate and instead want to show it was improperly used. I would love to see Rangers lose, Nimmo-Smith revisited because it is no longer an administrative error but an illegal scheme which gave Rangers an advantage and their titles vacated. Unfortunately I don't think that will be the case because 1. HMRC will lose the UTTT and 2. The SP(F)L won't re-investigate if they do.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

So "both things were always illegal" becomes " ppi is still legal and so are bank charges "

And second part, why yes it does.

Illegal in the way ppi was sold and bank charges applied as in it didn't meet the code of conduct (or whatever they call officially call it) of the FSA

[AberdeenBud]

I enjoyed Hedi Poon's dissent. It was very fun to read. Her incredulity at the shear brazenness of the scheme was great and her dismay that HMRC lawyers were incompetent in that they never argued the overall scheme was a sham. Unfortunately her arguments have no real legal standing.

I wonder how HMRC will shape their arguments on appeal having already conceded the main point that the scheme was legitimate and instead want to show it was improperly used. I would love to see Rangers lose, Nimmo-Smith revisited because it is no longer an administrative error but an illegal scheme which gave Rangers an advantage and their titles vacated. Unfortunately I don't think that will be the case because 1. HMRC will lose the UTTT and 2. The SP(F)L won't re-investigate if they do.

Well we can agree on one thing JMG, the authorities will not touch this case again with a barge pole no matter the result of the UTTT. If HMRC do lose the UTTT i would imagine they would be minded to appeal again.

[Monkey Tennis]

I would love to see Rangers lose, Nimmo-Smith revisited because it is no longer an administrative error but an illegal scheme which gave Rangers an advantage and their titles vacated. Unfortunately I don't think that will be the case because 1. HMRC will lose the UTTT and 2. The SP(F)L won't re-investigate if they do.

Even if 1 were to happen, which I doubt, I don't think it would impact on 2 at all. The ruling for 2 reflected an inability to retrospectively punish events that slipped through the net at the time. I can't see how that would change.

[govan_loyal_1872]

is this thread still going ? get a life people

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Even if 1 were to happen, which I doubt, I don't think it would impact on 2 at all. The ruling for 2 reflected an inability to retrospectively punish events that slipped through the net at the time. I can't see how that would change.

I don't accept that. While the registration of players is no longer in dispute the extent to which Rangers benefitted from the illegal parts of the scheme is vastly inflated. They were found to not have gotten an on field advantage from the tax structure because in he main it was found to be legal. If it ounce to be illegal the on field advantage becomes clear as admitted by David Murray in his testimony.

[killingfloorman]

I don't accept that. While the registration of players is no longer in dispute the extent to which Rangers benefitted from the illegal parts of the scheme is vastly inflated. They were found to not have gotten an on field advantage from the tax structure because in he main it was found to be legal. If it ounce to be illegal the on field advantage becomes clear as admitted by David Murray in his testimony.

So if HMRC win the appeal the gers hand back all trophies 'won' during the ebt years?

[54_titles_and_still_going_]

is this thread still going ? get a life people

Obsessed wae the Rangers.

[~~~]

So if HMRC win the appeal the gers hand back all trophies 'won' during the ebt years?

they can't Rangers died and Charlie Green brought them

[The_Kincardine]

they can't Rangers died and Charlie Green brought them

Brought them from where? Did he also bring the titles with him?

[hellbhoy]

f**k the Pope.

Having a bad day there ? I see it just got worse and is a really bad one now .

edit for typoooo

Edited June 24, 2013 by hellbhoy

[AberdeenBud]

Another bigoted alias bites the dust.

[Apache Don]

Another bigoted alias bites the dust.

So who's alias was he anyway?