The_Kincardine Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 It would have been avoidance had the scheme succeeded. no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Yes. They would have avoided paying tax perfectly legally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Yes. They would have avoided paying tax perfectly legally. The scheme was never about paying tax or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Irrelevant as far as the tax side of things is concerned. Edited November 11, 2015 by Tibbermoresaint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The scheme was never about paying tax or not. What was it about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 What was it about? The level of tax to be paid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The level of tax to be paid. Would you expand on that, please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Would you expand on that, please. Sure. Rangers' EBT scheme was well known and openly declared. Its role was to reduce its beneficiaries' tax liability rather than evade taxation. This is why it was perfectly legal, open and honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Except of course it wasn't, as we know from the Court of Session's ruling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Sure. Rangers' EBT scheme was well known and openly declared. Its role was to reduce its beneficiaries' tax liability rather than evade taxation. This is why it was perfectly legal, open and honest. Except of course it wasn't, as we know from the Court of Session's ruling. Did the CoS rule it was anything other than "legal, open and honest."? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 They upheld HMRC's appeal. The avoidance scheme failed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 They upheld HMRC's appeal. The avoidance scheme failed. This doesn't make it illegal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 It does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Would you expand on that, please. He means they were paying some tax, just not on the stuff they hid. Would I be right in thinking that the reason that cheatco are being used as the test case because a football club has to declare it's players wages and is therefore easier to examine? Sure. Rangers' EBT scheme was well known and openly declared. Its role was to reduce its beneficiaries' tax liability rather than evade taxation. This is why it was perfectly legal, open and honest. If it was open and honest why did HMRC have to go to such lengths to get your dead ol'club to co-operate? Stop bullying the children and avoiding discourse with any rational view (no offence Tibber, your hearts in the right place but this level of pedantry seems to have passed you by a bit). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 It's been good lads, but time for some Golf and hopefully a spot of sunshine, back for the Livi game, enjoy yersels in the meantime, Follow Follow Aw the best Rab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarette Smoking Man Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Stone me, are folk seriously still discussing this. What sad sad lives these obsessed non old firm fans live. There was a time when they were more interested in this Rangers shenanigans than their own clubs, which says a lot really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Did the CoS rule it was anything other than "legal, open and honest."? They didn't rule it was that nor did they rule it was round, furry and buckfast soluble. But you know that too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Sure. Rangers' EBT scheme was well known and openly declared. Its role was to reduce its beneficiaries' tax liability rather than evade taxation. This is why it was perfectly legal, open and honest. It was well known and openly declared? If that's the case, then I take it this side letter thing was a clerical error? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Why are the 'Rangers' fans on here suddenly asking folk to commment on the legality of EBTs Like totally out of the blue and all-of-a-sudden ? Splattered around this thread over the last week have been posts pointing out that it's not the EBTs that are the issue it's the way they were used and the tax due that's the issue. Have I missed something? Edited November 11, 2015 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarette Smoking Man Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 It was well known and openly declared? If that's the case, then I take it this side letter thing was a clerical error? Bugger off to the Woodside Inn for a nice watery stale lager. 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.