The BIG strip the titles thread

[BobWilliamson]

1 hour ago, Randy Giles said:

Not even the likes of bennett believe what they're coming away with anymore. They know they supported a dead club. They know they support a new club. They know the old club were cheats and they know they sat back and watched their club die.

No wonder they feel the need to lash out at every turn.

And Get It Right Up Ye

[Insaintee]

12 hours ago, Blue92 said:

You Are wrong. 

"It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence."

Why must it be emphasised? Because it is a possibility. 

The switch to criminal liability would only come after a referral to the procurator fiscal. HMRC would not be making these allegations except within that context.  

Quite clearly the shredding of evidence is a criminal act.  

Will it be prosecuted? Why did Craig Whyte comit a criminal act to save Murrey's skin? I think he would not be too hard to persuade to go queen's evidence (oh the irony)

[nacho]

19 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

Ladies & gehentlemen may I present to you the most thickest poster on the forum below.

Nobody is disputing that you thick c**t.

As within the rules they made before and during Rangers demise.

It's not about EBT's any more you thick b*****d.

Really? I do love to make you look like the most stupidest poster P&B has ever seen Tedi.

Taken from the BBC website dopey,

And again from the same website,

http://bbcspain.localizer.co/sport/football/40727182

Look? 2010? Isn't that the year before the tax man cometh and they made rule changes in their tax rules just in time before liquidation for Rangers. Not suspicious at all eh?

So fanny baws, you were saying there weren't any changes and it was a fairy tale. Fucksake you wouldn't even know what rules are in the first place fuckwit. Have a nice day.

 

thanks for confirming everything was legal and nothing could be done, i also like your conspiracy theory about rules changes, very amusing, any evidence that the rules were changed in a way that would benefit rangers?

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, nacho said:

thanks for confirming everything was legal and nothing could be done, i also like your conspiracy theory about rules changes, very amusing, any evidence that the rules were changed in a way that would benefit rangers?

Other than the fact they benefited Rangers, none whatsoever.

[nacho]

13 hours ago, The DA said:

Not sure if I'm being whooshed again or if you are just being uncharacteristically creative with your wording... but are you stark, staring, fucking mad?

A legal tax avoidance strategy would be one that involved minimizing tax paid.  Although Rangers tried to get away with not paying any tax at all, the SC decided that EBTs, as they were used by Rangers, DID incur taxes at the normal rates.  

So, in what way was it 'a legal tax avoidance strategy'?

I think you're getting your half-understood arguments mixed up.  EBTs weren't illegal (I believe they are now) but they were not a 'legal tax avoidance strategy' either.

it was a legal attempt to avoid taxes, it remains a legal attempt as ebts were legal at the time, its you that seems to struggle with this very simple concept, the supreme court was clear its tax  avoidance which is always legal - get it now

[nacho]

13 hours ago, Blue92 said:

I think he means that it is legal in the sense that if you try to avoid tax and fail to do so, you essentially pay the tax owed. Its not illegal to try and avoid it in the first place. At the point where they inform you that you actually do owe them tax monies as your avoidance scheme wasn't quite water tight and you fail to respond or pay up that is the illegal bit, and it becomes tax evasion. 

exactly, an obvious conclusion to make which some people on the board struggle to understand

[nacho]

12 hours ago, The DA said:

Thanks, Blue.  I suspected that's what he meant but was hoping he'd try to explain himself. 

I've posted elsewhere that what I think shoots this argument down ('we were just testing tax laws') in Rangers'case is that they didn't take the earliest opportunity to establish the position with the taxman and, worse, that they didn't set aside the money to pay the tax in the event the taxman found against them. 

 

 

it was obvious thats what i meant, nothing shoots that down as the supreme court was clear that there was nothing wrong with what rangers did, it would have been much more suspicious if we had put money aside as that would have been an inidciation we didnt think the scheme was above board

[Ken Fitlike]

it was a legal attempt to avoid taxes, it remains a legal attempt as ebts were legal at the time, its you that seems to struggle with this very simple concept, the supreme court was clear its tax  avoidance which is always legal - get it now

But you struggle with the very simple concept that the side letters effectively made the EBTs sneakily disguised employment contracts....

Get it now....

[Ken Fitlike]

it was obvious thats what i meant, nothing shoots that down as the supreme court was clear that there was nothing wrong with what rangers did, it would have been much more suspicious if we had put money aside as that would have been an inidciation we didnt think the scheme was above board

Shull to thread!

Need urgent advice re. breeks problem....

[Blue92]

Why must it be emphasised? Because it is a possibility. 
The switch to criminal liability would only come after a referral to the procurator fiscal. HMRC would not be making these allegations except within that context.  
Quite clearly the shredding of evidence is a criminal act.  
Will it be prosecuted? Why did Craig Whyte comit a criminal act to save Murrey's skin? I think he would not be too hard to persuade to go queen's evidence (oh the irony)

No, because there is a general confusion between tax avoidance/evasion with joe public, so it was emphasised that it was in fact avoidance. If there was a possibility of charging Rangers with tax evasion they would have pursued it like a fly on shite. To avoid this 'tooing and froing' I would suggest you read the Judgement document on the SC website as discussing U.K tax law on a Friday night is too much for me[emoji23].

[nacho]

12 hours ago, The DA said:

I didn't want to dilute the argument by introducing disputed issues.  

Basically, if Rangers want to use the 'just testing the tax waters' argument, they also need to accept that this gamble failed and,  just as if they had put the same money in small brown envelopes, they now need to take their point-stripping licks. The QC said he couldn't punish the old owners since they no longer existed - but the points are earned by the Club, the very club they say is still in existence.  They can't have it both ways.

its not us that says the club is still the same , its absolutely everyone, including the spfls qc in his notes this week and the supreme court judges 2 weeks ago, embarrassing that you are still peddling the new club gibberish when everyone says you are wrong. as for your other point the qcs said there was nothing in the rules that they could punish us for and we were already punished for our rule breach 4 years ago

[Ken Fitlike]

No, because there is a general confusion between tax avoidance/evasion with joe public, so it was emphasised that it was in fact avoidance. If there was a possibility of charging Rangers with tax evasion they would have pursued it like a fly on shite. To avoid this 'tooing and froing' I would suggest you read the Judgement document on the SC website as discussing U.K tax law on a Friday night is too much for me[emoji23].

So......side letters then?

They kind of topple this house of cards you are trying to construct

[nacho]

12 hours ago, Insaintee said:

Just how do you think this helps your argument? Tax evasion is illegal. In fact in some circumstances, you can go to jail for it. The Supreme court has established that Rangers (r.i.p.) were guilty of tax evasion. Please note "Guilty," and "Illegal," the next word that might be coming is of course "Criminal,"

the supreme court stated it was tax avoidance and legal - comedy gold from you

[nacho]

11 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Why are processes requiring to be examined anew?

they are doing that to pacify you clowns who cant handle the fact that our minor infraction was sufficiently punished 4 years ago

[nacho]

11 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The deceitful registration of players, did not take place last week.

it didnt take place ever

[nacho]

10 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's simple, unsubtle and unsuccessful deflection.  

They genuinely have no arguments about why Rangers deserve to keep these titles, so pounce on an 'illegal' here or a 'getting away with murder' there instead.

They will not take on the issue of cup ties having been overturned before for genuine, isolated, careless registration errors; set against the backdrop to the penalty Rangers have faced for the scale of their breach.

you dont have any arguments why they should be taken off us more like

[Insaintee]

Nuns just think if they keep saying it that makes it true. A bit like they kept saying Rangers would never go bust, be liquidated, Not shoe horned into the SPL the list is endless and in every case they've been wrong. 

I wonder why they think their going to be right this time

[Blue92]

So......side letters then?

They kind of topple this house of cards you are trying to construct

The original post I was responding to was about the SC case. f**k all to do with the side letters/registration...LNS dealt with the side letter issue back in 2013. If you don't see it as justice then then that's your problem, nothing I can do about it.

[nacho]

7 hours ago, strichener said:

No, it became evasion when Ranger's informed HMRC that there were no side-letters.

not according to the supreme court it didnt, thats the facts of the matter

[Insaintee]

Just now, Blue92 said:

The original post I was responding to was about the SC case. f**k all to do with the side letters/registration...LNS dealt with the side letter issue back in 2013. If you don't see it as justice then then that's your problem, nothing I can do about it.