Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[bennett]

Ok. Er, congratulations. People who work hard at avoiding meeting their tax obligations are, in my view behaving in an immoral way. When the people in question are rich anyway, the offence is greater.

Yer baws, we'd all love to get away with less/not paying it.

[Jacksgranda]

Sanctimonious clap trap ?, morality ?, No none of those two things where in my post Grandpa, I was merely pointing out why the HMRC were pursuing the tax dodging cnuts.

Interesting point though why aren't the HMRC chasing them for complete tax evasion on the EBT scam itself. After all not a single penny from the scheme was ever paid in tax, but that all falls apart when it comes to Minty's defence, legally they were loans so to speak so can't be called tax evasion or avoidance.

Where the HMRC are chasing them down on is the abuse of the EBT scam they ran for over a decade. If they can proof MIH breached the rules & regulations of the EBT scheme by using the loans as wages then they will hammer Minty and the EBT recipients for tax avoidance because the recipients of the EBT scam did pay PAYE & NI through the club paying part or most of their wages at the time.

I didn't say you did, otherwise I would have quoted you.

I must admit I'm a bit vague as to how these EBT schemes work, not moving in that sort of tax bracket, if they were so legit, why aren't we all paid that way?

What is the rationale behind them - apart from not paying tax? Are they like a pension scheme? If they are, would it not have been simpler paying into a pension plan? Although I suppose pension plan payments are paid out of taxed income, and EBTs aren't taxed.

Why weren't they closed down immediately, instead of running for years and years.

I've heard that a lot of these tax avoidance schemes are dreamed up, and administered by, by ex HMRC employees. Don't know how true that is, seems plausible, gamekeeper turned poacher.

Perhaps we should all be lobbying our elected representatives to have all tax avoidance schemes closed down, including the ones which benefit our elected representatives.

[hellbhoy]

Should that happen, expect to see side letters galore appear.

Another thought is that The "independant" inquiry cleared the club due to them not being found Guilty. If they are found guilty then what then for those titles?

This is where the corrupt associations have helped the club keep their tainted titles and cups.

Firstly the former dissolved SPL has ruled upon their breaching of the rules and actually found them guilty of cheating, BUT ?, the associations also put into their rules that no retrospective punitive measures could be meted out because they weren't caught in the act of cheating at the time ???

Conclusion !, they did in fact cheat for over a decade and were given a whopping £250K fine which they gave to the oldco/dying club and not what they see as the same club, BUT ?, they weren't caught in the act of doing so at the time so couldn't be stripped of their tainted silverware and why the orcs can boast "no sporting advantage" because of the fucked up associations rules won't punish them for past rule breaking/breaches.

Even if the HMRC win the case finally the club will not even be punished at all because the SPL has dealt with the matter according to their rules and has also dissolved so therefore will not be able to retrospectively remove their ill gotten gains because the SPL does not exist any more. Possibly one of the reasons why league reconstruction took place, to bury the cnuts cheating.

[THE KING]

So if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill, you would refuse it?

Definitely, if your boss said I can cut your tax in half just sign up fot this perfectly legal scheme,youd be like..eh f**k off.

[Monkey Tennis]

Yer baws, we'd all love to get away with less/not paying it.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make it morally right.

[Jacksgranda]

Definitely, if your boss said I can cut your tax in half just sign up fot this perfectly legal scheme,youd be like..eh f**k off.

That's not what I said.

If I was/had been offered a 50% tax reduction scheme I would have sought a second opinion, and possibly a third.

I asked "if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill", would you refuse it?

[Jacksgranda]

Orks still trying to justify tax evasion.. cheating dead club RIP

Who's justifying tax evasion?

[cyderspaceman]

This is where the corrupt associations have helped the club keep their tainted titles and cups.

Firstly the former dissolved SPL has ruled upon their breaching of the rules and actually found them guilty of cheating, BUT ?, the associations also put into their rules that no retrospective punitive measures could be meted out because they weren't caught in the act of cheating at the time ???

Surely most cheats don't get found out until after the event. (Unless they're not very good at it. )

Cheating over an extended period of time, say ten years, should be punished MORE harshly, not less.

No retrospective punishment, eh. Wot about Lance Armstrong?

[THE KING]

That's not what I said.

If I was/had been offered a 50% tax reduction scheme I would have sought a second opinion, and possibly a third.

I asked "if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill", would you refuse it?

Tax avoidance is legal so Id still say no.

[Jacksgranda]

Surely most cheats don't get found out until after the event. (Unless they're not very good at it. )

Cheating over an extended period of time, say ten years, should be punished MORE harshly, not less.

No retrospective punishment, eh. Wot about Lance Armstrong?

Like Legia Warsaw, you mean? Thank goodness Celtic were on their toes, there.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Jacksgranda

[Monkey Tennis]

That's not what I said.

If I was/had been offered a 50% tax reduction scheme I would have sought a second opinion, and possibly a third.

I asked "if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill", would you refuse it?

Why are you reading significance into what an individual would do if presented with the chance?

Many of us would do all manner of 'wrong' things, if given an apparently sanction free opportunity. That has no bearing on what constitutes what is 'right'.

[Jacksgranda]

Why are you reading significance into what an individual would do if presented with the chance? Many of us would do all manner of 'wrong' things, if given an apparently sanction free opportunity. That has no bearing on what constitutes what is 'right'.

I'm not reading significance into anything.

I asked a simple question.

He amplified it.

I replied.

[Monkey Tennis]

I'm not reading significance into anything.

I asked a simple question.

He amplified it.

I replied.

You've now asked two of us what we'd do as individuals.

I'm suggesting that that's not particularly relevant here.

[cyderspaceman]

You don't pay tax on the interest, so it is a tax avoidance scheme.

Yes. It is not a loophole. A loophole enables the circumventing of a regulation. An ISA does what it says on the tin.

Edited May 15, 2015 by cyderspaceman

[Jacksgranda]

You've now asked two of us what we'd do as individuals. I'm suggesting that that's not particularly relevant here.

I actually asked you if we're going to be picky, and he chipped in with his opinion. I replied to THE KING's post. I didn't ask him what he would do, I quoted my original question.

If you don't think it's relevant, why not say that in your original reply to my hypothetical scenario?

[hellbhoy]

I didn't say you did, otherwise I would have quoted you.

I must admit I'm a bit vague as to how these EBT schemes work, not moving in that sort of tax bracket, if they were so legit, why aren't we all paid that way?

What is the rationale behind them - apart from not paying tax? Are they like a pension scheme? If they are, would it not have been simpler paying into a pension plan? Although I suppose pension plan payments are paid out of taxed income, and EBTs aren't taxed.

Why weren't they closed down immediately, instead of running for years and years.

I've heard that a lot of these tax avoidance schemes are dreamed up, and administered by, by ex HMRC employees. Don't know how true that is, seems plausible, gamekeeper turned poacher.

Perhaps we should all be lobbying our elected representatives to have all tax avoidance schemes closed down, including the ones which benefit our elected representatives.

Just to clarify the proper use of the EBT scheme Grandpa.

It is legally defined as a lump sum pension fund, you and your company pay into the scheme each pay day and that money paid in isn't taxed by the HMRC. You keep paying into the scheme until you retire and then you receive a lump sum retirement payout that gets taxed by the HMRC but not at the higher amount they might have done if it were wages.

Benefits of a properly run scheme is to borrow money from the fund to pay for goods or services in the UK without paying any UK tax because the money is from an offshore account. Not only that you will avoid any interest from banks or lenders for borrowing thousands of pounds. Say you borrowed £20K from the EBT scheme and not the bank for a housing extension, you'll save countless thousands in borrowing interest and also you won't have to pay any UK tax for the extension saving you thousands in UK tax. Who wouldn't use a legal loophole like this ?

Now the money you borrow will have to be paid back into the EBT scheme before you retire so that when you retire the HMRC can then tax your lump sum retirement fund accordingly.

This system ran for years very legit until some smart fuckers found out you could use it to avoid paying any tax by giving out countless loans which where legal in the EBT scheme but without the need to ever pay it back which the HMRC took exception too and are now ending EBT schemes, the dilemma is the ethical use of a loan that has no intent to be ever paid back and can it be deemed a loan if there is no repayment of any kind ever. Rangers never even paid back a penny from all the loans they gave out.

[Monkey Tennis]

I actually asked you if we're going to be picky, and he chipped in with his opinion. I replied to THE KING's post. I didn't ask him what he would do, I quoted my original question.

If you don't think it's relevant, why not say that in your original reply to my hypothetical scenario?

Ok, not a particularly important distinction, but yes, you directed the original question in a different direction, rather than asked someone else anew.

I'd thought my original answer made it abundantly clear that how I as an individual would behave in a given scenario is not necessarily the best objective measure of what is moral.

My mistake.

[Jacksgranda]

Just to clarify the proper use of the EBT scheme Grandpa.

It is legally defined as a lump sum pension fund, you and your company pay into the scheme each pay day and that money paid in isn't taxed by the HMRC. You keep paying into the scheme until you retire and then you receive a lump sum retirement payout that gets taxed by the HMRC but not at the higher amount they might have done if it were wages.

Benefits of a properly run scheme is to borrow money from the fund to pay for goods or services in the UK without paying any UK tax because the money is from an offshore account. Not only that you will avoid any interest from banks or lenders for borrowing thousands of pounds. Say you borrowed £20K from the EBT scheme and not the bank for a housing extension, you'll save countless thousands in borrowing interest and also you won't have to pay any UK tax for the extension saving you thousands in UK tax. Who wouldn't use a legal loophole like this ?

Now the money you borrow will have to be paid back into the EBT scheme before you retire so that when you retire the HMRC can then tax your lump sum retirement fund accordingly.

This system ran for years very legit until some smart fuckers found out you could use it to avoid paying any tax by giving out countless loans which where legal in the EBT scheme but without the need to ever pay it back which the HMRC took exception too and are now ending EBT schemes, the dilemma is the ethical use of a loan that has no intent to be ever paid back and can it be deemed a loan if there is no repayment of any kind ever. Rangers never even paid back a penny from all the loans they gave out.

Aye, now that you've explained it, I remember it was explained before!

So it was a pension scheme.

You borrow money from your EBT to buy a car/build an extension/go on a round the world cruise etc, but you're supposed to pay it back in before your retirement.

And the EBT schemes operated by Rangers/MIH didn't fulfil this obligation.

Would HMRC be informed about loans paid out from an EBT? Would an EBT not be shown on your personal tax return? Would a loan from your EBT not be shown on your tax return (I'm guessing "no" here, although it could be shown "as introduced income")?

[Jacksgranda]

Ok, not a particularly important distinction, but yes, you directed the original question in a different direction, rather than asked someone else anew. I'd thought my original answer made it abundantly clear that how I as an individual would behave in a given scenario is not necessarily the best objective measure of what is moral. My mistake.

I certainly didn't take that out of your original answer, if that was your intention it was too subtle for me, I'm afraid.

[bennett]

Nothing like a good dose of revisionism just in time for the weekend.

...and the QC has reinvented himself as an expert in taxation.