Darren Jackson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

Sorry I am going to have to take issue with you on that.

They did not invest in good faith

...

---

How do you know?

For years pop stars were planting trees in ugly rectangular blocks all over the countryside to take advantage of the tax benefits. It wasn't a loophole, it was a government scheme.

Was the tax relief on film investment not a government initiative to boost the industry?

I doubt any of the footballers involved were looking to defraud HMRC, the were simply sold a scheme that wasn't as clear cut as they believed.

I take it you don't take advantage of the various tax deuctions available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRAZYHIBBY

My favourite player at hibs when i was young...lost all respect for him when he signed for hearts

---

Same, he was my hero when I was at primary school. I remember being gutted seeing him play for celtc and I hated him when he played for Hearts. Can't say i'm overly upset at this news :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I put money into an ISA last year. Many would not have been able to afford to do that. Am I cheating them? :dunno:

---

if you think that those 2 sets of circumstances are remotely similar, I have more to do than waste my time on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

The Evening News headline had him as ex-Hibs and Celtic!! Mind you, they probably didn't mentioned his time at Hearts to save him more embarrassment.

---

I'm not sure what their game plan was with that....why did they not mention he was more recently a jambo than he was a hibbie ?
Anyway...if I recall correctly Jackson starred for the hearts and was a (if not the) key player in keeping them up.
Bloody good player for all 3 Edinburgh clubs, and very surprised he got himself into such a predicament. (although fully deserved if he was trying to avoid paying his taxes)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

How do you know?

For years pop stars were planting trees in ugly rectangular blocks all over the countryside to take advantage of the tax benefits. It wasn't a loophole, it was a government scheme.

Was the tax relief on film investment not a government initiative to boost the industry?

I doubt any of the footballers involved were looking to defraud HMRC, the were simply sold a scheme that wasn't as clear cut as they believed.

I take it you don't take advantage of the various tax deuctions available?

---

The problem with all these schemes is that they are designed for the common good by well intentioned civil servants.

They are then *******ized by wide boys who can see loopholes the well intentioned civil servants cannot and are exploited.

Can you honestly say that some of the names on that list would have invested into such schemes without the massive tax advantages they were sold as carrying?

To answer your other query, yes I have ISA's and pensions, so do most other people with the means to afford them to a greater or lesser level.

It is my fervent hope that the next budget will introduce a universal rate of tax relief of around 30p and will restrict annual contributions further.

Far too much pension tax relief is obtained by far too few people.

I don't propose to get into the why's and wherefors of who can afford and who cannot these things as its a multi faceted argument, some of which but by no means all is determined by people's life choices.

My argument would be if you can afford a pint, holiday or any non essential expenditure unlike food, clothing heat and light and a roof over your head and any others I may have omitted accidently, you can afford a pension or ISA but choose not to.

There are some poor soul's in the world who cannot. If we can remove / reduce aggressive tax evasion then that money must be used to help them

My favourite Hibs player of all time.

He did f-all at Celtic and at Hearts so I don't really let the fact that he played for those clubs tarnish my memories of him.

We got his best years, fantastic player for us and I like the thought of him attending ER regularly with his son.

This news gives me no joy whatsoever. Companies and individuals the length and breadth of the country try to pay less tax. In an ideal world we'd be like the Scandinavians where they are proud to pay their tax and enjoy all the benefits that go with that. But unfortunately we now live with the legacy of Thatcher's "me, me, me" culture and anyone who proudly pays their tax (like many in Scotland do, and also like those who have no choice but to do) get the piss ripped out of them by the many elsewhere who do not.

Sad, but true.

If you get involved in these schemes you do so knowing that it is at your own risk and if it goes belly-up then you only have yourself to blame.

**** him. I've no sympathy for anybody who partakes in tax avoidance schemes. He was earning more than enough through his career to pay his dues like everybody else has to, so folk like him don't deserve any sympathy.

Jackson is a victim of the endemic greed prevalent in this sad epoch of the failure of late capitalism. Lots of more shallow individuals than him have been caught up in the 'last days of the empire' mentality. Sadly, most of them are in politics and banking, which only exacerbates the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I put money into an ISA last year. Many would not have been able to afford to do that. Am I cheating them? :dunno:

---

Lol. There are plenty ISAs around you can open with a pound. Ridiculous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

Lol. There are plenty ISAs around you can open with a pound. Ridiculous statement.

---

That's true, but there is no point in putting one pound into an ISA just now because there is currently no difference in the net interest you'd receive by putting one pound in an ISA and putting one pound in any other account. There is no tax saving on one pound.

I should have said that I put a much larger amount in an ISA specifically to avoid paying any tax on the interest. I am trying to understand why it is ok for me to do that, if it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

My favourite Hibs player of all time.

He did f-all at Celtic and at Hearts so I don't really let the fact that he played for those clubs tarnish my memories of him.

We got his best years, fantastic player for us and I like the thought of him attending ER regularly with his son.

This news gives me no joy whatsoever. Companies and individuals the length and breadth of the country try to pay less tax. In an ideal world we'd be like the Scandinavians where they are proud to pay their tax and enjoy all the benefits that go with that. But unfortunately we now live with the legacy of Thatcher's "me, me, me" culture and anyone who proudly pays their tax (like many in Scotland do, and also like those who have no choice but to do) get the piss ripped out of them by the many elsewhere who do not.

Sad, but true.

If you get involved in these schemes you do so knowing that it is at your own risk and if it goes belly-up then you only have yourself to blame.

---

He scored for Hearts against us at Easter Road and IIRC went mad after the goal and seemed to love getting it up us. He could GTF after that as far as I was concerned.

It was a great strike in fairness though :duck:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

How do you know?

For years pop stars were planting trees in ugly rectangular blocks all over the countryside to take advantage of the tax benefits. It wasn't a loophole, it was a government scheme.

Was the tax relief on film investment not a government initiative to boost the industry?

I doubt any of the footballers involved were looking to defraud HMRC, the were simply sold a scheme that wasn't as clear cut as they believed.

I take it you don't take advantage of the various tax deuctions available?

---

That's exactly what happened.

Classic case of HMRC deciding that they didn't care for a Government - instigated scheme. Challenged it in Court, and won the day. Similar to the EBT story.

Will be interesting to see if DJ, and others, take action against their advisers.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Noticed from the article in the news that it claims Jackson has no assets to repay his debts. If this is the case it is very sad for Jackson and his family.

However, is it the case like the choreographed administrations at the cheating ****bos and Sevco things like houses and other assets can be hived off and rise phoenix like in other peoples names or other companies names?

Does nobody take pride in paying their way these days or is life just about getting as much as you can for nothing? Are those of us with the attitude only spend what you can afford whilst paying their debts when requested really just old fashioned mugs?

---

It was interesting to read David Rutherford, who is DJs trustee (similar to an administrator ) saying that he will investigate whether DJ has any assets.

DJ says he has none, but it will be DR's job to find out if that is the case. First off, for example, he will need to check whether the film investment has any value. There's also the question of whether any assets were put into the names of others, and when. Also, whether there is a case for action against his advisers .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Franck

He scored for Hearts against us at Easter Road and IIRC went mad after the goal and seemed to love getting it up us. He could GTF after that as far as I was concerned.

It was a great strike in fairness though :duck:

---

As you say, cracking goal.

From memory it was a consolation goal in a defeat (one of many at that time) for his side. Whilst it was a good goal I don't remember him ever playing a significant part in a victory over us. There are even some tidy clips of him cowering on the bench during the 6-2 game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibayernian

He tried to avoid paying Tax and it caught up with him

Some get away with it (Hearts), others don't (Rangers RIP)

---

I'd still say Rangers got off lightly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's exactly what happened.

Classic case of HMRC deciding that they didn't care for a Government - instigated scheme. Challenged it in Court, and won the day. Similar to the EBT story.

Will be interesting to see if DJ, and others, take action against their advisers.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

---

Not sure if I agree with that exactly.

The problem with many of these schemes was that they were manipulated so that the principal activities were the tax saving and the film (in cases like this) itself was way down the line in the list of priorities and entirely spurious.

HMRC challenged many of these schemes on the basis that they were entirely fabricated.

There is the age old problem that the baddies pay more money to their advisers than the government do to theirs and that consequently they are better placed to find loopholes that the government advisers never considered.

I hope they do go after their advisers, although paradoxically that may well fall back to bite me personally if the FSCS rule they were covered and the advisers fold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There's also the question of whether any assets were put into the names of others

---

My favourite phrase of gratuitous alienation comes into play here :greengrin

For some reason I have always loved that phrase, the phrase not the act!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

Not sure if I agree with that exactly.

The problem with many of these schemes was that they were manipulated so that the principal activities were the tax saving and the film (in cases like this) itself was way down the line in the list of priorities and entirely spurious.

HMRC challenged many of these schemes on the basis that they were entirely fabricated.

There is the age old problem that the baddies pay more money to their advisers than the government do to theirs and that consequently they are better placed to find loopholes that the government advisers never considered.

I hope they do go after their advisers, although paradoxically that may well fall back to bite me personally if the FSCS rule they were covered and the advisers fold.

---

That, though, is the point of the incentives. People with cash, who would otherwise have no interest in the film industry, are encouraged to sink their cash. If it's done properly, everyone's a winnner.... the investor, the industry and the economy as a whole.

I don't know too much about this case, but I'm assuming that (again, like the RFC case) well-meaning schemes were stretched by people who should have known better.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the likes of DJ. Although, as has been said on this thread, they were guilty of greed, they did put their trust in people who they thought were entitled to that trust. That just reflects badly on the likes of you and me, and dissuades people from getting proper and decent advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That, though, is the point of the incentives. People with cash, who would otherwise have no interest in the film industry, are encouraged to sink their cash. If it's done properly, everyone's a winnner.... the investor, the industry and the economy as a whole.

I don't know too much about this case, but I'm assuming that (again, like the RFC case) well-meaning schemes were stretched by people who should have known better.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the likes of DJ. Although, as has been said on this thread, they were guilty of greed, they did put their trust in people who they thought were entitled to that trust. That just reflects badly on the likes of you and me, and dissuades people from getting proper and decent advice.

---

An entirely fair summing up of things, as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BSEJVT

Not sure if I agree with that exactly.

The problem with many of these schemes was that they were manipulated so that the principal activities were the tax saving and the film (in cases like this) itself was way down the line in the list of priorities and entirely spurious.

HMRC challenged many of these schemes on the basis that they were entirely fabricated.

There is the age old problem that the baddies pay more money to their advisers than the government do to theirs and that consequently they are better placed to find loopholes that the government advisers never considered.

I hope they do go after their advisers, although paradoxically that may well fall back to bite me personally if the FSCS rule they were covered and the advisers fold.

---

The Treasury's advisors are often on secondment from the companies that are arranging these tax dodging schemes. No wonder they rung rings around them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Noticed from the article in the news that it claims Jackson has no assets to repay his debts. If this is the case it is very sad for Jackson and his family.

However, is it the case like the choreographed administrations at the cheating ****bos and Sevco things like houses and other assets can be hived off and rise phoenix like in other peoples names or other companies names?

Does nobody take pride in paying their way these days or is life just about getting as much as you can for nothing? Are those of us with the attitude only spend what you can afford whilst paying their debts when requested really just old fashioned mugs?

---

I don't think anyone does - how many folk have granny and grandad paying for their kids Christmas? How many have overdrafts and huge credit card bills?

How many young folk want to be famous - not for having a talent just to be rich and famous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S

Jackson is a victim of the endemic greed prevalent in this sad epoch of the failure of late capitalism. Lots of more shallow individuals than him have been caught up in the 'last days of the empire' mentality. Sadly, most of them are in politics and banking, which only exacerbates the problem.

---

Jung that's some fancy purdy words there slick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I put money into an ISA last year. Many would not have been able to afford to do that. Am I cheating them? :dunno:

---

But if you ISA goes tits up and you get back less than you put in, then that is the risk that you take? That is the risk that DJ has taken.

I too put money into ISA's and more often or not I look to put whole amount that I am allowed too. No one makes me do this and I do it because I can afford to.

I am not the most accomplished person, when it comes to financial matters, and I have a balanced portfolio which is mix of steady to middle risk shares which will make few bob and one or two risky ones. I had this all carefully explained to me, as you would do, when it is your money. I am more than aware what I was signing up for.

I would say I was motivated by security over huge wealth.

And what I would also say is that if my financial advice was to invest in an obscure film company, that can't realistically turn a profit, I would know full well what that was, and chose not to take that risk.