Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So the legal tax avoidance scheme has been proven to be ......legal......again. How much has tbis witch hunt cost the tax payer? Why is Alex Salmond not asking why a leading SCOTTISH football club was treated differently than ENGLISH football clubs by HMRC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So the legal tax avoidance scheme has been proven to be ......legal......again. How much has tbis witch hunt cost the tax payer? Why is Alex Salmond not asking why a leading SCOTTISH football club was treated differently than ENGLISH football clubs by HMRC?I am sure it is not close to the £21 million Rangers cost the tax payer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So the legal tax avoidance scheme has been proven to be ......legal......again. How much has tbis witch hunt cost the tax payer? Why is Alex Salmond not asking why a leading SCOTTISH football club was treated differently than ENGLISH football clubs by HMRC? Well, why don't you tell us, Eight? Why do you think HMRC treated the company the way it did, and why do you think Salmond didn't intervene? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you cant answer the questions just say so. I ve been away for a few days and just wondered why Scotlands first minister allowed a Scottish club being treated differently to pass without any comment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you cant answer the questions just say so. I ve been away for a few days and just wondered why Scotlands first minister allowed a Scottish club being treated differently to pass without any comment I think HMRC acted properly and I think Alex Salmond, as a government minister, isn't allowed to get involved in these matters, beyond urging both parties to get round the table and negotiate for mutual gain. So that answers your question. Now, why do you believe HMRC acted as they did? What do you think Salmond should've done? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you cant answer the questions just say so. I ve been away for a few days and just wondered why Scotlands first minister allowed a Scottish club being treated differently to pass without any comment Rangers had a 10 year history not payingTax so why would he defened them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you cant answer the questions just say so. I ve been away for a few days and just wondered why Scotlands first minister allowed a Scottish club being treated differently to pass without any comment Why would Salmond step in? As far as i'm aware he hasn't done it for any other company who are having similar issues with HMRC. so why would your company be treated any different? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you cant answer the questions just say so. I ve been away for a few days and just wondered why Scotlands first minister allowed a Scottish club being treated differently to pass without any comment Far from being treated differently. Hector pursues scumballs tax cheats all the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Rangers had a 10 year history not payingTax so why would he defened them?They did pay all taxes due...Ennglish clubs cost the tax payer hundreds of millions using these schemes but the taxman was willing to deal with them..So why did our first minister not ask why a Scottish was dealt differently?FFS its an easy enough question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I think HMRC acted properly and I think Alex Salmond, as a government minister, isn't allowed to get involved in these matters, beyond urging both parties to get round the table and negotiate for mutual gain. So that answers your question. Now, why do you believe HMRC acted as they did? What do you think Salmond should've done? It does not answer the question at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They did pay all taxes due... Did they? The 'WTC' killed them stone dead, what was that about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They did pay all taxes due...Ennglish clubs cost the tax payer hundreds of millions using these schemes but the taxman was willing to deal with them..So why did our first minister not ask why a Scottish was dealt differently? FFS its an easy enough question. When did they pay the tax due on the Wee Tax Case I think you will find at the end up it was about 6 million they still owed for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 It does not answer the question at all. You asked why HMRC acted as it did and why Salmond didn't intervene - as I said, I think HMRC acted properly, and it's a fact that government ministers aren't allowed to intervene directly in tax disputes or any similar matter. Any intervention by the First Minister would be a pretty clear breach of the ministerial code, no different than if he'd tried to intervene to prevent someone accused of a crime from being prosecuted. If you have good reasons to disagree with either of these answers, feel free to explain them. (BTW I realise that you want the answers "Because HMRC hated Old Rangers for some unknown reason" and "Because Salmond hated Rangers", and won't accept anything much less wacky. Nobody is going to give you those answers though, not least because they're very silly). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Nonsense. Rangers used a legal tax avoidance scheme.....they were not alone. In 2010 HMRC closed the loophole which allowed this scheme to operate, then they wrongly tried to apply retrospective punishment, it was always doomed to failure, complete waste of taxpayers money. This isn't the case, Ted. If it was, the Oldco wouldn't have admitted to running numerous non-compliant schemes, and they wouldn't still be on the hook for more of them. Really, this is quite an important point - you actually were running schemes that violated the law, and your lawyers admitted that you'd done it in court and accepted the penalty. That in itself confirms that HMRC were correct to pursue you. And since your lawyers admitted that these schemes were illegal at the time and accepted the penalty, this can't possibly be "retroactive punishment" - it's just "punishment" or, as it's more commonly known, "justice". HMRC couldn't prove that the entire thing was a fraud, of course, but what you're saying here boils down to Prosecutors shouldn't pursue suspected criminals if they're not absolutely certain that they can secure a conviction. Which is a daft thing to be saying, if you think about it. Edited July 11, 2014 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Hector pursues scumballs tax cheats all the time. Note to fellow Bears: Even though we won the FTT and the UTT voted in Oldco's favour and even if the LNS inquiry agreed we gained, "No sporting advantage" the mind of the average P&B diddy and plastic is made up. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally so we just have to accept the view, shrug our shoulders and move on. Anything else become petty tit-for-tat minutiae. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Note to fellow Bears: Even though we won the FTT and the UTT voted in Oldco's favour and even if the LNS inquiry agreed we gained, "No sporting advantage" the mind of the average P&B diddy and plastic is made up. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally so we just have to accept the view, shrug our shoulders and move on. Anything else become petty tit-for-tat minutiae. 1999: Rangers open a discounted option scheme (DOS) specifically for payments to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer. 2011: 1 April - Rangers announce a £2.8m tax liability over an issue relating to 1999-2003 (the DOS) This tax liability has still not been payed so explain how this is not cheating Tax? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20417847 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 On the ones that were not administered correctly I agree but on the ones that were, they tried to dish out retrospective punishments, that's what those tax bills were, it really cannot be denied. HMRC could not prove the entire thing was fraud because it simply wasn't, how many cases do you want HMRC to lose before you finally get this? HMRC pay top-dollar for the best forensic accountants and company lawyers that they can buy, Tedi. Do you think that they'd chase you over a decade, all the way to an appeal, if they really thought that their entire argument was as weak as you're claiming it was? I suppose that it's always possible that HMRC's investigators pursued you out of malice, or monomania or whatever. On the other hand, if the accountants and lawyers presented a case to the court that they knew to be invalid, then they're all in violation of their own profession's regulatory code and are liable to be disbarred from practicing, possibly permanently. Do you think all these people were willing to risk their entire careers, just to put one over Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Note to fellow Bears: Even though we won the FTT and the UTT voted in Oldco's favour and even if the LNS inquiry agreed we gained, "No sporting advantage" the mind of the average P&B diddy and plastic is made up. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally so we just have to accept the view, shrug our shoulders and move on. Anything else become petty tit-for-tat minutiae. So the dead club left no taxes unpaid? That is what you are saying. Correct? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 HMRC pay top-dollar for the best forensic accountants and company lawyers that they can buy, Tedi. They don't. 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.