Printable View
If you supported DeadHun, you'd be having a boring old season, eh no?:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by banchoryhibs
Actually, Hector was asked if he would appeal, and he was heard to mumble..... "Too right.....Chucky Ar La!!!"
(our day will come)
I'd also be doing my nut at this decision and greeting about how HMRC royally shafted the loyal ones:greengrin :greengrin Entertaining times:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I guess this is the big frustration - we all know these loans are salary payments in disguise as the club never had any intention of seeking repayment. I just get the feeling they are going to be ok in terms of the SPL investigationQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The club is irrelevant. The loans were from the Trust(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
But..... have faith. There are some shrewd legal brains on the SPL commission. :agree:
I can't see HMRC letting this go too easily :wink: Still a few miles left in this one, Me thinks...
They paid some bonuses (eg Champions League qualification) through the Trusts as well, which even the majority verdict is admitting were emoluments. Some of the detail talks about a Rangers official moaning that Barry Ferguson ("Mr Ipswich") was a greedy barsteward, demanding £25K in a trust payment for beating some Cypriot team.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is that for sure? Interesting if so.....did you pick that up somewhere in the 145 pages, or elsewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Maybe you'll know this.... somewhere amongst all the Reservoir Dogs nom-de-plumes, they almost let slip someone's identity. They talked about Mr "whatever colour", and then "his son". Any clues who that might be?
I know they were not 'loans', the club when making the payment knew it was not a 'loan', the players when receiving the cash knew it was not a 'loan'. So pretty much everybody knew it was not a loan in the sense that everyone else recognises a loan i.e you take the cash and pay it back over an agreed period of time with a rate of interest.
Legally I am guessing it was classed as a loan, hence the finding in their favor. But where does someone take a look at this shambles and say "hang on a minute" and look at what was actually happening?
Seems like a total shambles. I am going to ask my employer to stop paying me my monthly salary now and just ask for a loan instead. Save a fortune on income tax and NI.
The practice has been stopped now.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
BTW, the reason it "worked" was because Trusts were used. It wouldn't work between employers and employees.
Page 85 leaves it in little doubt. It refers to "Mr Ipswich" as being Rangers captain during the 2005/06 season, which was Ferguson. "Mr Violet" is also referred to as the manager, which was McLeish.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
From reading the findings, I would be amazed if HMRC don't appeal to the second tier tribunal. The dissenting opinion goes into far more detail about the payments and their nature. I think it's significant that the majority verdict comes from two qualified solicitors, whereas the dissenting opinion comes from a tax professional (CTA qualified). The two judges from a legal background have (partially) accepted the legalistic argument that these payments were loans and therefore not taxable, whereas the judge from the tax background has seen through the legal form.
ps "Mr Purple" is Neil McCann. Page 95 talks about Mr Purple being sold for £1.75M on 5 August 2003, which was the date McCann was sold to Southampton. McCann received £500,000 in a trust payment relating to his departure.
If I'm reading that correctly, though, that was based on Mr. Scarlet's recollection of events. The judgement goes on to doubt Scarlet's reliability as a witness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I find this the most compromising account to Mr Scarlet’s own credibility as a witness.
So... Bazza could just say.... he wiz lyin' aboot the 25 grand. The judge says so.
Or have I read it wrongly?
However, reading on a few pages:-
In the end, only 9 out of 29 players received their UEFA bonus through the trust arrangements, with some
new sub-trusts being created for this occasion.
Now that does suggest remuneration, eh no??
I agree with you about the appeal, especially given the dissenting voice and the fact that there are more cases pending, IIRC. The only thing that may stop it is cost.
"Mr Evesham" (page 103 onwards) is Stefan Klos. Signed for Rangers in 1998, left them during the 2006/07 season - findings says that Evesham signed in 1998, spent "eight and half years with Rangers", was injured during the later part of his time there (Klos broke his leg during the 2004/05 season) and the initial negotiating figures are in "DM" (German Marks). The findings note that Rangers claimed insurance on the full amount paid to Klos, including the "loans", while he was injured.
Just finished watching Newsnight Scotland with the Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for the constituency Ibrox is in, the journalist Tom English and some guy from Ernst and Young. Well worth looking up on IPlayer if you've been following the case.
Ernst and Young guy looked like he was about to start laughing at the verdict! Davidson obv a bluenose and not happy about how long the whole case took but having a pop at Murray and immoral tax avoidance in general.
Nothing to stop Hibs setting up legal EBT schemes for our players. Might not be moral but if it meant we kept Griffiths would it be worth looking into :stirrer::tin hat::devil:
Outlawed by 2011 Finance Bill (Budget).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/emp...fit-trusts.htm
The thing is, Rangers would have got away with a massive tax saving and no HMRC investigation, assessment and tribunal if they hadn't made a mess of administering their EBT scheme. Shame (not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Surely the spirit of the rule is they have to lodge players contracts, and they clearly had two, or dual, contracts for a decade. So they misled the SFA, tried and succeeded in destroying evidence, obstructed investigation at every turn, cheated the other SPL clubs who paid their taxes. Punishment on oldco has to be meted out. If not then no member club need take any heed of association rules again as they will be proven optional.
HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeithenHibby
Just a wee reminder of what Dodds stated in the Herald article;
"The full story is that David Murray came to me and asked if I would receive a payment that was due to me, after tax, through the EBT trust. And I said that I would. It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United. After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund."
Now how the **** is that a loan? :confused:
Although most of the trust payments were made from Rangers (£36M), over £10M was paid from Murray's other companies. An appeal to upper tribunal wouldn't fully re-open the case, basically a new set of judges would consider the same evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
On reflection, the front page of the verdict is both inaccurate and unhelpful. It suggests that Rangers have unreservedly won the case. They haven't as the details show that there are over 30 individuals who did receive remuneration via EBTs and are due tax. If I was in court facing 110 charges and was found guilty on 35 of them I wouldn't see that as a triumph. It probably means that HMRC were still due £20-30 million in unpaid income tax.
The MSM don't seem to have picked up on the subtleties of the judgment. As might be expected the "Rangers were innocent and it's all Craig Whyte's fault" campaign is in full swing. Never mind the facts when a fresh supply of succelent lamb is on the horizon.
I hope that both BDO and Lord Nimmo-Smith possess a greater degree of intellectual subtlety than our sports journalists. It's not much to hope for.
It's not just the spirit, it's the letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
However, my point is that, as I understand it, it's only "contracts for wages" that have to be lodged. "Contracts for loans" don't have to be.
From my reading of the 145 pages (admittedly very broadly), RFC did purposely not lodge those side-letters. However, given that most of those have been held to be "loans", they may have inadvertently got themselves off the hook.
It comes back, though, to a point I have made a few times. The judgement isn't clear which payments have been held to be "wages". If any of these relate to players (ie not directors) wages, then they are in trouble. But... at this stage we cannot tell.
Fair point but, IIRC, there are other cases waiting in the wings which might be worth the outlay; HMRC's success in them may depend on their getting a positive result in the RFC case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Dodds' payment may be one of those that has been deemed to be wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
It did tickle me last night to see and hear so many people speaking knowledgeably about a case which took 2 years to complete, whose judgement runs to 145 pages, and whose verdict had only been known a few hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
Watching the penny drop (Admittedly with a little nudging from me) with the huns at my work that they may not have needed to be liquidated is ****in amazing :thumbsup:
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
I don't get the disappointment with the decision. The Huns (original) are dead. The Huns (new) are consigned to the lower divisions with a total chancer at the helm ... and it might all have been avoided. :greengrin
What's not to like? :aok:
Priceless! Still them and green are a perfect match, they will feed off his paranoia for years to come
Thanks for that. Strange that the Ernst and Young rep seemed to be talking about future legislation to close this loophole. I can only assume he was meaning other existing methods of tax avoidance :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
The whole judgement smacks of the rich looking after the rich.
just shows you how difficult it is to stop the tax avoiders...the ****s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20417221
The National Audit Office said HMRC was dealing with a backlog of 41,000 cases involving individuals and small companies, with up to £10.2bn at stake
But according to the NAO, between 2004 and 2011 about 2,300 avoidance schemes were disclosed to the tax authorities, with more than 100 new schemes emerging in each of the past four years.
And FTTT make it clear that they were deliberately deceiving the football authorities by hiding payments to players.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Should make Lord Nimmo Smiths job a lot easier.
Was at the supermarket and today's headline in the Scottish Sun was "Rangers died for nothing".
Untrue. Think of all the joy their demise has brought to fans of other teams.
But there are some interesting snippets. Had a quick look at the judgement and I noticed this in s28 about our old friend Ginger Judas
..... had advised Mr Violet to seek a tax indemnity from Rangers in
respect of trust benefits, which was granted.
Now if I'm reading that correctly, then if 35 individuals are due tax to HMRC they will have to pay up in full and then join the ordinary creditors of OldHuns to try to claim some money back under the indemnities.