Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Rovers_Lad]

Nonsense.

As has been posted several times already, if you are an employee it is the responsibility of your employer to deduct the correct tax and NI and ensure it is paid to HMRC. If they do not do so the Revenue will pursue the employer. And rightly so. They won't pursue the employee as they've done nothing wrong. If your present employer goes bust and hasn't paid your PAYE to HMRC for six months would you be happy for HMRC to come after you for it?

The only potential for chasing individuals would be if it could be proven they were complicit in agreeing a scheme they knew to be illegal to evade tax. It would be near impossible to prove and it's doubtful how much benefit there would be even if it could be proven. Almost certainly less than the costs of pursuing it.

Go and tell HMRC then. . . .see my previous post.I was not complicit in agreeing a scheme I knew to be illegal to evade tax yet was chased for an under payment of income tax

[Ken Fitlike]

The "full Lance Armstrong"? He was directly competing with racers who had no chance of beating him as he was full of exogenous hormones. There was no way an unassisted rider could have ever beaten him. Rangers signed players and paid them through a tax avoidance scheme. How does that prevent other teams from beating them? Our escapades in the lower leagues have shown that it isn't the team who spends the most money that always wins.

This "financial doping" nonsense is just clever rhetoric and completely confuses the simple minded.

Once again, you're all being lured into Celtic's trap and thinking that title stripping is your idea.

'lured into celtic's trap' - the cherry on top of a big cake made of shite post.

FFS

[aofjays]

Your question is flawed, try and reword it.

Lol. Poor benny.

[DM5]

Do you believe that illegally inflating your wage capacity is fair on the other clubs in a competition? Yes or no. Preferably without any whataboutery.

How do you inflate your wage capacity?

But to answer your question, albeit re-worded to make more sense: Do I believe it's fair to pay players higher wages than other teams in a competition? Yes.

Your reference to Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson is flawed. It's apples and oranges, man. On any given day a "natural" athlete cannot beat another athlete who uses steroids - it guarantees success.

Having the players we did in no way guaranteed success. Whether or not those players would have otherwise came doesn't mean we wouldn't have won the competitions.

There was a definitive point in Ben Johnson's career where you could see he began to take drugs. He wouldn't have won those races had it not been for steroids. The same doesn't apply to Rangers winning leagues and cups.

[Ken Fitlike]

Off topic, however, does this shull fella have a mental disability? Because the only things he ever seems to post are rants like the above (in fact the above is probably the longest post I've seen from him) and I never know whether to engage with him or not as everybody else just seems to ignore him.

Shull is Scottish Football's moral compass

[DM5]

'lured into celtic's trap' - the cherry on top of a big cake made of shite post.

FFS

Could you please refute the content of my post as opposed to just saying it's a "shite post"?

[Ken Fitlike]

How do you inflate your wage capacity?

But to answer your question, albeit re-worded to make more sense: Do I believe it's fair to pay players higher wages than other teams in a competition? Yes.

Your reference to Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson is flawed. It's apples and oranges, man. On any given day a "natural" athlete cannot beat another athlete who uses steroids - it guarantees success.

Having the players we did in no way guaranteed success. Whether or not those players would have otherwise came doesn't mean we wouldn't have won the competitions.

There was a definitive point in Ben Johnson's career where you could see he began to take drugs. He wouldn't have won those races had it not been for steroids. The same doesn't apply to Rangers winning leagues and cups.

you are a fucking idiot.

The Rangers ebt squad was far superior in quality to the squad that would have taken the field if you had recruited the quality of player that would have been in your spending range without the secret dodgy contracts.

[aDONisSheep]

Well, it's Friday, I'm inundated with work and so I decide to waste some of my time reading the judgement. Obsessed I tell you?

Anyway, there seems to be a fair bit of ignorance about what the judgement actually was. So at the risk of sounding conceited, I'll try to summarise (and I'll try to keep it brief so please don't be too pedantic).

Summary of what had gone before.

Anatomy of DeadRangers EBTs

Rangers paid cash into Principle Trust which passed money onto Subsidiary Trust that 'lent money' to employee.

First Tier Tribunal and appeal tribunal;

HMRC argued that the Trusts and loans from them were a sham. As part of their evidence they tried to argue that the side letters conferred an obligation on the Employer and the Trusts to the employee.

The FTT and appeal found that even though there was a degree of 'co-ordination' between the side letters and the assets the trusts received, the trustees had enough discretion and there was no obligation. They also found that there was substance to loans from the trusts to the employee, and that they were not just a paper exercise.

(There were some exceptions but I'm ignoring them)

Court of Session (what changed)?

HMRC asked a different but linked question (substance over form essentially).

This time, they dropped the notions of obligations and asked if the trusts were set up was as part of the conditions of employment. If the answer is yes, then the argument goes that this is income and part of the overall emoluments and subject to income tax. The fact that it is paid to a third party is immaterial. (The judgement says that).

They gave plenty of case law to support the decision, but I think the easiest way to think of it is this. Any tips a waitress receives are not part of their contract to their employer (so no obligation), but they are a function of 'being a waitress'. As such they (tips) are subject to income tax.

HMRC successfully argued that despite there being no 'obligation' between the trust and the employees. The payments into the principle trusts were a function of employment and 'earned' by the employee. (The existence of the side letters as part of the agents negotiations re-enforced this opinion) "common sense" etc.

If that principle held, then it mattered not, how or by which vehicle benefit was transferred (i.e. the downstream Pricincipal or Subsidiary trusts were now immaterial). These payments are now deemed to be 'income' and therefore subject to income tax (and NIC).

I found the whole judgement fascinating.

Yours

aDONis, obsessed and proud of it!

P.S. now back to work

[mythstoliveby]

No Hector, I get it, If you had a point you would go and fetch similar quotes from other players that would back up your theory, instead you prefer to attack me and the journalist who penned the story but did give the quotes, funny I have not seen you por scorn when the same rags print negative Rangers stories

I always attack journos - irrespective of the content of their articles - usually because there's always an agenda with that lot.

It's the press FFS!

My criticism of you was for not acknowledging that articles like this one are heavily slanted. Unless of course you think that the press is reasonable and balanced? And, in this case, the daily record is reasonable and balanced???

Be careful now how you answer that second question because you might find yourself thrown out of the rangers club......

[Ken Fitlike]

Could you please refute the content of my post as opposed to just saying it's a "shite post"?

I have refuted your shite post by calling it a shite post.

Edit - 'maybe if you reworded it' (Bennett's tactic)

Edited November 6, 2015 by Ken Fitlike

[carpetmonster]

How do you inflate your wage capacity?

But to answer your question, albeit re-worded to make more sense: Do I believe it's fair to pay players higher wages than other teams in a competition? Yes.

.

No, that's inventing an entirely new question. The actual question is 'are you embarrassed that the dead club you used to follow were a shower of cheating bassas, and all your triumphalism, superiority complex and we arra people was built on defrauding every taxpayer in the country to contribute to the rancid organisation'. Which given your refusal to answer that question, you seem to be, which does, I guess put you a level above Rangers Media posters, so well done for that, at least.

[carpetmonster]

How do you inflate your wage capacity?

But to answer your question, albeit re-worded to make more sense: Do I believe it's fair to pay players higher wages than other teams in a competition? Yes.

.

No, that's inventing an entirely new question. The actual question is 'are you embarrassed that the dead club you used to follow were a shower of cheating bassas, and all your triumphalism, superiority complex and we arra people was built on defrauding every taxpayer in the country to contribute to the rancid organisation'. Which given your refusal to answer that question, you seem to be, which does, I guess put you a level above Rangers Media posters, so well done for that, at least.

[CityDave]

Congratulations to Rangers, you have a real business head in Mike Ashley who has just been appointed Director of Rangers Retail.

Mike Ashley who has put more money into Rangers than Dave King also now has the majority of power in the boardroom.

What could go wrong?.

[mythstoliveby]

I've never understood the zombies sticking up for people not paying tax. Who gives a flying eff about the legalities or otherwise of it.

People are living off of food banks yet there are morons on here gloating because a bunch of millionaires got more money by dodging paying tax, just so they can get one over other people over a game of football. What kind of absolute mugs are you?

THIS x1000

[Njord]

From David Murray's (aka "Mr Black") testimony at the original appeal.

https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/old/documents/murray291012.pdf

Page 53, note 207

I believe the term is "clamped"?

It is indeed, and should be bookmarked for future arguments over 'but they would've signed anyways'...

[shull]

Off topic, however, does this shull fella have a mental disability? Because the only things he ever seems to post are rants like the above (in fact the above is probably the longest post I've seen from him) and I never know whether to engage with him or not as everybody else just seems to ignore him.

TNFC

Lol

[BinoBalls]

How do you inflate your wage capacity?

But to answer your question, albeit re-worded to make more sense: Do I believe it's fair to pay players higher wages than other teams in a competition? Yes.

Your reference to Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson is flawed. It's apples and oranges, man. On any given day a "natural" athlete cannot beat another athlete who uses steroids - it guarantees success.

Having the players we did in no way guaranteed success. Whether or not those players would have otherwise came doesn't mean we wouldn't have won the competitions.

There was a definitive point in Ben Johnson's career where you could see he began to take drugs. He wouldn't have won those races had it not been for steroids. The same doesn't apply to Rangers winning leagues and cups.

You inflate your wage capacity by running an illegal scheme which means you can pay players you perhaps otherwise couldn't afford. If you cannot see that then you are an idiot.

Of course other teams "could" still beat rangers. EBTs didn't guarantee victory. But it gave Rangers an unfair advantage.

Now answer my question rather than inventing your own one.

Edited November 6, 2015 by BinoBalls

[Homer Thompson]

How do you inflate your wage capacity?

By making bigger

But to answer your question, albeit re-worded to make more sense: Do I believe it's fair to pay players higher wages than other teams in a competition? Yes.

Of course it is, no one has suggested it is. The cheating comes in because Rangers were paying players higher wages than they could afford through an illegal tax evasion scheme.

Your reference to Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson is flawed. It's apples and oranges, man. On any given day a "natural" athlete cannot beat another athlete who uses steroids - it guarantees success.

Having the players we did in no way guaranteed success. Whether or not those players would have otherwise came doesn't mean we wouldn't have won the competitions.

There was a definitive point in Ben Johnson's career where you could see he began to take drugs. He wouldn't have won those races had it not been for steroids. The same doesn't apply to Rangers winning leagues and cups.

Utter nonsense, and even if it wasnt, its totally irrelevant. No one can prove that Rangers wouldnt have won those trophies without cheating, but it really doesnt matter. The fact is they did win and they did cheat, same as Armstrong, same as Johnson. The circumstances of the cheating maybe different, its impact on the result maybe different but the outcome is exactly the same

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Still no coherence from the Sleuth, then?

Edited November 6, 2015 by WhiteRoseKillie

[Homer Thompson]

Nope.

Yup