bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Odd then that you fail to mention the dissenting opinion at the FTTT was the "dedicated taxation expert". Make your argument look a bit silly though. Maybe that's why? Again it was widely reported at the time that M's spoon was the least qualified of the trio. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Dave no happy aboot a couple of posts laughing at Celtic, whit a shocker! Anyway not being an expert like our new killie chum, let's see if I've got this right. Rangers win TWO appeals with some dedicated taxation experts sitting on the tribunals. HMRC launch a third appeal and three judges who do not specialise in taxation decided to ignore legal precedents and claim they were taking a common sense route and binning the law books. Several taxation experts have since claimed that this ruling has left them bewildered. Again not bring a Celtic or killie fan I'm no expert, just looking at it in layman's terms. Glad you admit that you are no expert. Read HMRCs argument for the original judgement and for the subsequent appeals and then read how they changed it for this latest judgement and you'll see that HMRC won their case on this revised argument basis. The original judgement and the appeals are irrelevant. It's nice to know you are my chum though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Glad you admit that you are no expert. Read HMRCs argument for the original judgement and for the subsequent appeals and then read how they changed it for this latest judgement and you'll see that HMRC won their case on this revised argument basis. The original judgement and the appeals are irrelevant. It's nice to know you are my chum though. Again not being a highly qualified expert like your good self all I'm seeing is precedents being ignored in favour of "common sense". -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Again not being a highly qualified expert like your good self all I'm seeing is precedents being ignored in favour of "common sense". Dyslexia playing up again, aye? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Bennett hurting. I like this brand new meme which has popped up that Heidi Poon was 'least competent' (code for scatty bitch should be in the typing pool and making the tea) I never saw that opinion of the HMRC tax expert till this week.... strange,eh? But at least Tedi immediately green dots his post. Edited November 6, 2015 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killienick Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Again not being a highly qualified expert like your good self all I'm seeing is precedents being ignored in favour of "common sense". I know that you are trying to make a point but I genuinely don't know what it is. HMRC lost their case on one basis and won it on another. This ruling actually sets the precedent as it was a different argument, (TBF it's the argument they should have used the first time). The 'common sense' approach refers to the fact that the law is pretty simple. Employer pays employee and tax is due. If that weren't the case then why would anyone bother to pay tax? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Again not being a highly qualified expert like your good self all I'm seeing is precedents being ignored in favour of "common sense". Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere. We realise that the fifth respondent [RFC 2012] was in, potentially, a difficult financial position, competing for good players in an international market where other countries may not have the same rigorous approach to taxation as the United Kingdom. Lord Drummond Young Court of Session. Rangers cheated then they died. Edited November 6, 2015 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Again not being a highly qualified expert like your good self all I'm seeing is precedents being ignored in favour of "common sense". You seem to have an issue, and I've a fair idea as to what it is.... © Benny/Vicky/Lilly savage/dame edna @ sjc boat thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Dyslexia playing up again, aye? Classy.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Lord Drummond Young Court of Session. Rangers cheated then they died. There's no way that a judge is qualified to say what a player 'might have' done, unless he has a crystal ball. Looks like jumping to conclusions... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Classy.... Aye just as classy as defending a team who cheated to win trophies. Walloper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 The orcs seem quite happy that the old Rangers cheated, celebrating the fact actually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 The orcs seem quite happy that the old Rangers cheated, celebrating the fact actually. Check out tedi green dotting every Benny post in sight...LOL He must be really hurting. Nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 There's no way that a judge is qualified to say what a player 'might have' done, unless he has a crystal ball. Looks like jumping to conclusions... He is a Law Lord and this was said in a court of law. Lord Nimmo Smith, speaking from a broom cupboard in the back of Hampden gave his opinion that no sporting advantage was gained, how is he any more qualified to reach an opinion on the subject? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 He is a Law Lord and this was said in a court of law. Lord Nimmo Smith, speaking from a broom cupboard in the back of Hampden gave his opinion that no sporting advantage was gained, how is he any more qualified to reach an opinion on the subject? It's called jumping to conclusions, no way that anyone can say for certain who'd have signed and who wouldn't have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 You Silly Billy, boy There you go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Apparently an ebt tricked last night's ref into sending some Celtic player off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 It's called jumping to conclusions, no way that anyone can say for certain who'd have signed and who wouldn't have. Exactly his opinion is as valid as LNS. If you discount one opinion on that grounds you also have to discount the other opinion on those grounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Two days to think about it, and this is the best they can come up with? The CoS 'ignored precedent', the actual Tax Expert on the FTT was the least qualified of the three, and all the players who received EBTs would have happily played for a fraction of the money. That's it. Am I missing anything? On a slightly different note: Mission accomplished on the burying of bad financial news. It has hardly warranted a mention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Stoney you're just going round in circles now, repeating the same old tired arguments and going nowhere. 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.