I think it will be difficult, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
As you say, the HMRC verdict will give a decent basis. But, how likely is it that anyone is going to break ranks and say "oh yes, we were at it."?
Printable View
I think it will be difficult, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
As you say, the HMRC verdict will give a decent basis. But, how likely is it that anyone is going to break ranks and say "oh yes, we were at it."?
It is my reading, that the current punishment is for misdemeanors committed under Craig Whytes stewardship. If the double cobtracts issue is proven then surely that must be judged independently from this. It seems to be unfair in terms of natural justice to treat and offence committed under the ancien regime as being a second breach of regulations since mens rhea is unlikely to be able to be proved on a retrospective basis. Alternatively, it may be adjudged as being evidence of widespread corporate failure. Apologies, just got a wee bit sidetracked. However the bottom line would appear to be that the Hun is in evident and hopefully fatal distress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
:flag::flag::flag: :flag::flag::flag::flag:
Like some closed railway station back in the days of Dr. Beeching in the 1960s.
Broken windows, holes in the roof, rubble lying on the ground, weeds growing through cracks in the concrete, graffiti on the walls, burnt out cars lying in the middle of the pitch, rubbish blowing about in the wind, tumbleweed blowing past the rusty holes where the goal posts used to be. Like Govan's very own version of inner city Detroit...
I can hardly wait :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Does there HAVE to be a tax implication for the double contracts issue still to be, ermmm, an issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is it not a case of one contract being lodged with the SPL saying Player X will be paid Y and another contract being held in the Big Hoose saying Player X will be paid Y + Z.
Whether or not Z is liable for tax or not does not take away the fact that one document said Y while the other Y + Z
Or is this too simple an analysis?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18108973
Glorious. World slowly becoming a better place.
I am struggling to see why there wouldn't be a tax aspect to a double-contract situation. Ignoring the EBT for one minute... if we pretend that hasn't happened.... the whole point of the double-contract scenario was to avoid tax. I can't see why else they would have done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
The point I was making is that, because the double-contracts suited everyone (the club, the players, the directors), it's going to be very difficult to get anyone to break ranks and admit to it.
The more I read out of Ibrox and the comments of some of there 'fans' the more I see they just don't understand the pain is caused by themselves....shooting yourself in the foot is ......well stupid
Kerr says it is unreasonable to hold Rangers to account for Whyte's actions
"We need to be careful that we don't end up hurting ourselves at the same time'' Kerr (rangers assembley)
Attachment 8266
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Perhaps if all the players involved were to offer to meet the tax liabilities it would show their commitment to and genuine affection for The Rangers. After all, did none of them (or their agents) smell a rat when they were asked to sign not one, but two, contracts, with the first the only one being liable for UK tax.
If Rangers cant/wont pay then I dont see anything wrong with pursuing the players for the unpaid tax. After all (if) they did sign a contract (or two) then the income should have been declared on their tax returns somewhere.
I tell you, Rangers fans are revolting!Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
The moon is made of (Charlie) Green cheese an all. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
As far as I am aware is that the SPL arent looking into the double contract from a tax point of view. They are looking at it from a breach of rules. I am sure the SPL must be informed of every payment made to the players, so if there are double contracts I am sure they will be punished based on breaking that particular rule not for avoiding tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That is indeed why they are investigating it. But, again, since so many people would have benefitted from it (principally from a tax position), it will be difficult to prove...Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs13681
Would there not be a hole in their accounting though? They must have provided the SPL with one of the contracts. If thats the case would their not be a massive difference between their spending on salaries and what was provided to the SPL. For the big tax case, would they not have investigated the situation to find out if there were dual contracts and if one them were being witheld from the SPL. If they did investigate that and found that they were witholding information from the SPL then that, to me, would prove an element of guilt from Rangers side in that they were trying to keep it hush and knew it wasnt above board.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If you don't read anything else tonight, read this.... for once a really, really clear picture of the Huns current reality! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
(it's long tho :rolleyes: )
As I understand it these multi national type players, for want of a better description, have their deals contracted to a net figure - so that different tax regimes in different countries don't matter.
Multiple contracts do exist, for playing, image rights etc. but I'd imagine they must all be registered and have tax properly paid on them. This is where they seem to have a bit remiss in completing the trail. Oops, forgot to register that one and pay tax on it, 75 times :-(
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon
I said weeks ago when discussing the complicity in all this of apologists for Rangers, that I do not believe players, even those who have taken a cut/deferment? in wages should be seen as victims in this - younger and academy players perhaps - but not full-time professionals who have agents. These guys were signing contracts for weekly wages equivalent to the average guy's yearly salary. No-one will convince me that players didn't know what was up - some might be thick but it's stretching the unintelligent/naivety bit just a tad.
Interesting that based on the Rangers Tax Case blogs tweets, he / they seem to suspect that Green is nothing but a front for whatever Whyte's endgame is... Alex Thomson also seems to be hinting at D&P having backed the wrong horse over other potential buyers...
So they travel to away games but stay outside? What a Grade A bell-end!Quote:
Originally Posted by RicheyWhite
I'm wondering why the police not grabbed Craig White for tax fraud yet? are they even looking into this?
Simply paying taxes late is not seen as fraud, otherwise there would be millions more in our jails. In most cases, late payment of tax is a sign of a business in trouble, or bad management.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
One would have to prove that there was genuine intent to defraud the Revenue.
:agree: Why don't we help them out? Scotland in the form of fans of the other clubs in Scotland could boycott them first? And isn't the national team England anyway for many of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by RicheyWhite
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Or shouldn't be. Derry city were busted down a division here on the basis of ONE player on a double contract. Since Derry's peculiar situation means they play in the league of one jurisdiction and pay tax in another, it never came up AFAIK.
Green was meeting Doncaster and Regan today. I heard a bit of a report saying that Green was heartened and optimistic at what was discussed. Is he only playing mind games, as reports yesterday suggested Regan was going to take a hard line with Green about the membership of his phantom consortium.
This is how it went (I hope)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Green "Will Rangers be in the SPL next year?"
Doncaster "Nope"
Green "Will Rangers be booted out of the SFA?"
Regan "Yup"
Green "So I'll get the properties for next to nothing?"
Regan and Doncaster "Looks like it"
Green " Ya beauty....I am heartened and optmistic."
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by D7 Bohs
I would still wager, though, that the whole point of that situation was to avoid tax.
But he not planning to pay it tho is he, well not the full ammount anyway I would call that tax evasionQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
So murray will be crapping it then come the big tax case?
In Whyte's case, you would have to prove that he never intended to pay it, ever. Even at that, it would be RFC who got done initially. To me, it is just a case of a business in severe difficulties. The Revenue are always one of the first creditors to get bumped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
SDM's case is a bit less clear-cut to me. I am sure he would hide behind the defence that he was acting on advice received. To be fair, a lot of companies were taking that same line at the time... it's "unfortunate" for them that HMRC didn't agree with their interpretation of the law.
However, HMRC might press charges to make an example of him... but it would, again, be difficult to prove "wilful" fraud.
more interesting stuff:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...nsfer-embargo/
especially like this bit:
Quote:
I may have missed it, but I have seen little if any apology for the non-payment of £13 million in tax, nor for the fact that HMRC will not see much, if any of that, whilst at the same time there is no chance of anything from the Big Tax Case being paid. Nobody has yet explained to me how Rangers did not benefit from the £13 million. There was over £3 million in Rangers bank when Duff & Phelps moved in. Presumably that was the balance of the money left, after the rest had gone paying the bills, including wages of players that Rangers would not otherwise have been able to afford to keep!
This is such a clear-cut case of taking an unfair advantage, as described by Neil Doncaster, that I cannot see why the SPL has not acted to withhold prize money. After all, the SPL proceeded against Hearts under the utmost good faith rule for being, allegedly, one day late. Here, by use of money which was due to HMRC, Rangers maintained their place in the league, to the point where the 10-point penalty has proved meaningless. Almost every team in the SPL below Rangers should be one step up the prize money ladder. Why is no one mentioning this?
i do hope there will be some SFA comings and goings at Hampden tomorrow - pleading owners / protesting morons etc will add to the afternoon entertainment :greengrin
This bit was interesting too. A slip of the tongue?
Rangers - Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: “Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals.”
Comment - Ah. Now this is an interesting comment. Sandy Jardine says that fans will find it hard to take it that the club is being punished for the actions of “individuals”. This is the official Rangers website, so I suspect an argument that he had been misquoted or take out of context would not work. Is this the only acknowledgement so far by Rangers that there were more people to blame than Mr Whyte? Maybe someone will ask Mr Jardine to whom he is referring.