Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Monkey Tennis]

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.

I'm just a bit baffled by your attitude towards people who try not to pay what they would ordinarily be due to, in tax.

It's damaging and wrong. As someone who clearly understands how power and wealth is so ill-divided in this country, I fail to see how you can be fine with this ugliest of manifestations of it.

[Jacksgranda]

I'm just a bit baffled by your attitude towards people who try not to pay what they would ordinarily be due to, in tax. It's damaging and wrong. As someone who clearly understands how power and wealth is so ill-divided in this country, I fail to see how you can be fine with this ugliest of manifestations of it.

That's the key word. If there is a legal way of not paying tax then it is not ordinarily due. I refer you to my post nr 191465 "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"

[Monkey Tennis]

That's the key word. If there is a legal way of not paying tax then it is not ordinarily due. I refer you to my post nr 191465 "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"

There was nothing whatever ordinary about how Rangers rewarded millionaires, regardless of its legality or otherwise.

As I said, I find your willingness to interpret such things leniently, baffling.

[Jacksgranda]

There was nothing whatever ordinary about how Rangers rewarded millionaires, regardless of its legality or otherwise. As I said, I find your willingness to interpret such things leniently, baffling.

Now that's baffling!

It was legal - it's implementation may be deemed immoral (there doesn't appear to have been any paying back of these loans or any attempt to get them paid which may be illegal) but it was perfectly legitimate.

[The_Kincardine]

HMRC had incomplete victory in the second round. In the third round, the judges thought the second round judgements made no sense and order a refight over the cases rangers where no conviced on. The third round is/was tried in Englandand will most certainly have implications for English law.

Of course trying to convict guilty people is nothing but malign

I still have two more pages to wade through but this is just the most stupid post I have read.

HMRC lost the LTT.

HMRC lost the UTT.

The third round will be at the Court of Session. The rest of your post is utter tripe apart from this wee gobbit, " incomplete victory".

It gives me some comfort to know that The Rangers had "incomplete victory" in The Championship this season!

[Monkey Tennis]

Now that's baffling!

It was legal - it's implementation may be deemed immoral (there doesn't appear to have been any paying back of these loans or any attempt to get them paid which may be illegal) but it was perfectly legitimate.

How so?

Notions of legality and legitimacy needn't be synonymous.

My objection is chiefly moral and I don't see how a defence along similar lines can begin to be constructed.

That's maybe why you've not tried.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Monkey Tennis

[Jacksgranda]

How so?

Notions of legality and legitimacy needn't be synonymous.

My objection is chiefly moral and I don't see how a defence along similar lines can begin to be constructed.

That's maybe why you've not tried.

Well, we're arguing at cross purposes - you're all moral, and I'm legal.

Where do you put your savings?

The meagre amounts of money I've kept out of the hands of the tax man I put into the Credit Union. Does that make me morally superior to someone who puts their savings in a high interest savings account?

[The_Kincardine]

My objection is chiefly moral

Monkey in high dudgeon. Statements like this can only end up in discussion about the schools and hospitals that could have been built if only Rangers had paid their taxes.

[Jacksgranda]

Monkey in high dudgeon. Statements like this can only end up in discussion about the schools and hospitals that could have been built if only Rangers had paid their taxes.

Is that not where Brora Rangers play?

[Monkey Tennis]

Well, we're arguing at cross purposes - you're all moral, and I'm legal.

Where do you put your savings?

The meagre amounts of money I've kept out of the hands of the tax man I put into the Credit Union. Does that make me morally superior to someone who puts their savings in a high interest savings account?

Let's not pretend that some meaningful comparison can be drawn between what we each do with our meagre monies and how the very wealthy are often able to behave.

[Monkey Tennis]

Monkey in high dudgeon. Statements like this can only end up in discussion about the schools and hospitals that could have been built if only Rangers had paid their taxes.

Nah, I've never gone for that stuff.

It's a bit simplistic and easy to parody.

However, the suggestion that it's immoral for very rich people to find imaginative ways to avoid contributing fully to a society they do very well from, does not strike me as contentious.

[Jacksgranda]

Let's not pretend that some meaningful comparison can be drawn between what we each do with our meagre monies and how the very wealthy are often able to behave.

Of course not, let's not pretend that. Morality only comes into it when rich folk are involved, not what we plebs get up to.

[Monkey Tennis]

Of course not, let's not pretend that. Morality only comes into it when rich folk are involved, not what we plebs get up to.

Don't be silly now.

Neither of us have entered into anything remotely comparable to an EBT that meant we received wages as 'loans' nobody wanted back.

And I've absolutely no difficulty in suggesting that it is morally worse when those who already have lots of money, work hard at taking yet more from others.

However, we're back to discussing what you or I might do. It's a pretty imperfect way of addressing what's moral.

[Monkey Tennis]

I once deliberately sneeked an extra 200 fags into my suitcase on the way back from Gran Canaria once, morally wrong evader me, but its ok cos I am relatively poor.

It certainly doesn't compare to anything to do with how Rangers tackled tax questions.

Would you seriously suggest otherwise?

[Guest Flash]

Evasion is when you indulge in criminal activity in order to reduce your tax bill, for example by deliberately understating your income.

Avoidance is when you arrange your affairs in order to pay the minimum amount of tax, usually by relying on an interpretation of the legislation that HMRC don't agree with.

There are many areas of tax legislation that are open to interpretation and this is why cases go to Court in order to determine which interpretation is correct.

As I understand the Rangers case, companies in the Murray Group made payments to EBTs for which they received a corporation tax deduction. The EBTs then paid some of the funds out to employees, some of it in the form of loans.

The case is over the meaning of earnings for the purposes of the income tax legislation. HMRC say the loans were earnings, Murray Group say they were loans, made by a third party - the EBT.

So far, the Courts (or tribunals) have agreed with the Murray interpretation. HMRC have appealed. The next step is for the case to be heard in the Court of Session. If it is appealed again, it may ultimately head to the Supreme Court, previously the House of Lords, where the final decision would be made.

The legislation was changed in 2011 by the introduction of Part 7A ITEPA which puts beyond doubt that such payments by third parties, including, but not limited to, EBTs are earnings. The Rangers case will only be relevant to periods before the new legislation became effective.

I understood that there were other cases awaiting the outcome of the Rangers case, but I may be wrong.

Note that the above is a very brief summary of a fairly large and complex area, so apologies if it has omissions. I've tried to keep it as brief as possible in order to avoid completely boring the arse off everybody, but I may have failed.

ETA Further apologies if it covers old ground. I've only recently started reading this thread, so I don't know what has been covered already. I noticed the chat about evasion and avoidance, so thought I would chip in.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Flash

[Monkey Tennis]

Evasion is when you indulge in criminal activity in order to reduce your tax bill, for example by deliberately understating your income.

Avoidance is when you arrange your affairs in order to pay the minimum amount of tax, usually by relying on an interpretation of the legislation that HMRC don't agree with.

There are many areas of tax legislation that are open to interpretation and this is why cases go to Court in order to determine which interpretation is correct.

As I understand the Rangers case, companies in the Murray Group made payments to EBTs for which they received a corporation tax deduction. The EBTs then paid some of the funds out to employees, some of it in the form of loans.

The case is over the meaning of earnings for the purposes of the income tax legislation. HMRC say the loans were earnings, Murray Group say they were loans, made by a third party - the EBT.

So far, the Courts (or tribunals) have agreed with the Murray interpretation. HMRC have appealed. The next step is for the case to be heard in the Court of Session. If it is appealed again, it may ultimately head to the Supreme Court, previously the House of Lords, where the final decision would be made.

The legislation was changed in 2011 by the introduction of Part 7A ITEPA which puts beyond doubt that such payments by third parties, including, but not limited to, EBTs are earnings. The Rangers case will only be relevant to periods before the new legislation became effective.

I understood that there were other cases awaiting the outcome of the Rangers case, but I may be wrong.

Note that the above is a very brief summary of a fairly large and complex area, so apologies if it has omissions. I've tried to keep it as brief as possible in order to avoid completely boring the arse off everybody, but I may have failed.

Billy Dodds also said they were earnings.

[Guest Flash]

Billy Dodds also said they were earnings.

That's that then. Call off the case.

[hellbhoy]

Of course it does not compare, what I did was actually illegal.

To make it even worse I did not even smoke, I sold them for a profit and did not declare that either.

^^^^

Reported to the HMRC for tax evasion or avoidance by a self incriminating post.

[Monkey Tennis]

That's that then. Call off the case.

I didn't say that.

I'm simply pointing out that the idea that it wasn't intended and received as wages is nonsense.

Obviously, legal requirements are more sophisticated than those provided by Dodds.

I'm not saying the judgement was wrong. I am saying however that the scheme and it's operation were immoral. I take great delight in the fact that even though deemed legal, the lingering EBTs prompted Murray to welcome Whyte aboard.

[hellbhoy]

I really don't know the EBT stuff is still doing the rounds now and again. No judicial judgement upon MIH's use of the scheme will affect the current Rangers FC in any way shape or form. The corrupt SPL has dealt with the matter and their cheating was swept under the carpet a long time ago. Even if MIH lose the case at the highest court in the land, Rangers will still keep their tainted silverware forever.