Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.

It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.

Shysters the lot of them.

Neither Murray or MIM could produce any legal advice at the hearings because they didn't have any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

That was my thoughts too. I cannot get my head around why SDM and his people thought they would get away with it? It's them pesky hibs fans isn't it?

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray is the biggest shark in the bog. He should be title stripped, publicly flogged, hung, drawn and quartered... just for starters

Ach, you've won me over. Head on a spike outside Ipox anaw!

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I have no doubt SDM is primarily concerned with himself. Habit of a lifetime I suppose.

[21.05.2016]

Todays ruling just set in stone and confirmed what everyone already knew - that Rangers used seedy deals, underhand tactics and just blatant cheat tactics to get an advantage on everybody else. There has been no real new revelations, its simply made their cheating past "official" if you like. However, it has now cemented what they did and they deserve punishment, not only for cheating but for (once again) embarrassing Scottish football and bringing the game into disripute.

If Sevco are not liable for the debts of the past then they can't claim the glories of the past. They can't have it both ways. They want nothing to do with the debts, the seedy past etc but they are happy to lap up the prizes they gained from it.

A deplorable club has just become even more deplorable (yes I know, I didn't think it was possible either!). A club that has sunk to lows in every possible area.

[Jack Hackett]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ach, you've won me over. Head on a spike outside Ipox anaw!

... While it burns

[weecounty hibby]

Rangers are a shower of dirty underhanded cheating *******s. I've known that for the last 44 years of watching Hibs. But now it is official as decided by the highest court in the land. They have had referees and the SFA/SPFL/SPL etc helping them and they still found new ways to cheat. They should have some of those poxy stars removed from that hideous blue rag they wear.

[tamig]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rangers are a shower of dirty underhanded cheating *******s. I've known that for the last 44 years of watching Hibs. But now it is official as decided by the highest court in the land. They have had referees and the SFA/SPFL/SPL etc helping them and they still found new ways to cheat. They should have some of those poxy stars removed from that hideous blue rag they wear.

Big bugbear of mine those stars. They had to invent a reason to have them. Now time for some to be whipped off.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Big bugbear of mine those stars. They had to invent a reason to have them. Now time for some to be whipped off.

I love the stars on their shirts.

They've won dozens of league titles fair and square and those titles are tarnished by the fact that they are hell bent on hanging onto the dodgy ones.

The fact that they feel the need to put stars on their shirts just makes a further mockery of the whole already-ludicrous institution.

The stars are a permanent, shameful reminder of their disgraceful recent past that they must wear for every game.

[Captain Trips]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Todays ruling just set in stone and confirmed what everyone already knew - that Rangers used seedy deals, underhand tactics and just blatant cheat tactics to get an advantage on everybody else. There has been no real new revelations, its simply made their cheating past "official" if you like. However, it has now cemented what they did and they deserve punishment, not only for cheating but for (once again) embarrassing Scottish football and bringing the game into disripute.

If Sevco are not liable for the debts of the past then they can't claim the glories of the past. They can't have it both ways. They want nothing to do with the debts, the seedy past etc but they are happy to lap up the prizes they gained from it.

A deplorable club has just become even more deplorable (yes I know, I didn't think it was possible either!). A club that has sunk to lows in every possible area.

This

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I would think that is quite likely.

Although a scheme that pays £6m to a company that then loans you it back and you dont have to either pay tax on it (going out or coming in) and neither do you have to repay the loan. What could possibly go wrong wiith such a bullet proof scheme?

I know i simplify things quite considerably but Murray was considered to be one of the foremost businessmen in the country, you would think that he, or some of his people (not to be confused with THE people) would see a potential flaw in the plan.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Neither Murray or MIM could produce any legal advice at the hearings because they didn't have any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that is interesting. I presume there's no way he could be in possession of said "legal advice" and not disclosing it at the hearing to be produced later when its his get out jail card? That would be contempt would it not?

[majorhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rather than stripping titles and awarding them to other clubs, wouldn't it easier for the SPFL and SFA to accept that the club who cheated their way to those titles is now dead and that the new club which is 5 years old have won nothing more than the championship, division 1, division 2 and the petrofac cup? They can get rid of one of those stars on their shirts and each of the 4 stars remaining can refer to the illustrious aforementioned titles.

What I've said from day 1. The 1 thing they fear, hugely! The 1 thing that should be done. The 1 thing that (listen GFA) will appease. They did NOT win anything then fairly because they paid more for better players because they were breaking tax rules, but it is irrelevant! That club is FINISHED DEAD done, due to their huge debts.

[southern hibby]

Now not into all this accountancy and legal stuff and I might be totally off the boil by my thought on it BUT WHAT IF?

1 because these are loans a court decides that they have to pay the money back to Rangers ( they players and managers that were involved inEBT's )

2 the money paid back then went towards the debt that Rangers left all the creditors with including the tax man.

I would guess that the tax man would be happy to chase the players etc for the tax that was avoided but what would happen if another creditor decided to take the players managers to court who benefited and asked for the money to be paid back to Rangers as it wasn't wages according to Rangers but loans, so that it could then be divided between creditors? Or if it was wages then that means that the deliberately avoided tax and were breaking the law.

GGTTH

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would think that is quite likely.

Although a scheme that pays £6m to a company that then loans you it back and you dont have to either pay tax on it (going out or coming in) and neither do you have to repay the loan. What could possibly go wrong wiith such a bullet proof scheme?

I know i simplify things quite considerably but Murray was considered to be one of the foremost businessmen in the country, you would think that he, or some of his people (not to be confused with THE people) would see a potential flaw in the plan.



Now that is interesting. I presume there's no way he could be in possession of said "legal advice" and not disclosing it at the hearing to be produced later when its his get out jail card? That would be contempt would it not?

Not sure if HMRC are up for pursuing it but the concealment of the side letters from HMRC would surely be fraud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.

It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.

Shysters the lot of them.

Wasn't it revealed that the guy they got their 'Advice' from is now working in the 'Porn Industry' ?

Anyway, couple of points from his statement in 'The Scotman' -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

So what were they then ? Can CWG or any other of the accounting/business-types on here say what these 'contributions' could be considered as ??


'.......... the liquidation of the club, which occured during the ownership of Craig Whyte'

DESPICABLE - the only word I can think of to describe Murray right now !. Found guilty of cheating yet still tries to use that poor dupe to try and deflect from the fact were it not for him - and him alone - the Hun would not have been in the position they ended-up in !

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That was my thoughts too. I cannot get my head around why SDM and his people thought they would get away with it? It's them pesky hibs fans isn't it?

They thought they would get away with it because hundred of companies throughout the U.K. were doing it.Thet's why the taxman kept appealing.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Now not into all this accountancy and legal stuff and I might be totally off the boil by my thought on it BUT WHAT IF?

1 because these are loans a court decides that they have to pay the money back to Rangers ( they players and managers that were involved inEBT's )

2 the money paid back then went towards the debt that Rangers left all the creditors with including the tax man.

I would guess that the tax man would be happy to chase the players etc for the tax that was avoided but what would happen if another creditor decided to take the players managers to court who benefited and asked for the money to be paid back to Rangers as it wasn't wages according to Rangers but loans, so that it could then be divided between creditors? Or if it was wages then that means that the deliberately avoided tax and were breaking the law.

GGTTH

The "loans" didn't come from Rangers. The club made payments to trusts, which then made the loans to the players etc.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wasn't it revealed that the guy they got their 'Advice' from is now working in the 'Porn Industry' ?

Anyway, couple of points from his statement in 'The Scotman' -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

So what were they then ? Can CWG or any other of the accounting/business-types on here say what these 'contributions' could be considered as ??


'.......... the liquidation of the club, which occured during the ownership of Craig Whyte'

DESPICABLE - the only word I can think of to describe Murray right now !. Found guilty of cheating yet still tries to use that poor dupe to try and deflect from the fact were it not for him - and him alone - the Hun would not have been in the position they ended-up in !

The contributions to the trusts were exactly that. They were not earnings. He is right about that.

However, he is blowing smoke about the actual issue. It is the payments BY the trusts that are the earnings.

The adviser, by the way, was in the adult industry before he became a tax specialist. Just another way of ****ing people for money.....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The contributions to the trusts were exactly that. They were not earnings. He is right about that.

However, he is blowing smoke about the actual issue. It is the payments BY the trusts that are the earnings.

The adviser, by the way, was in the adult industry before he became a tax specialist. Just another way of ****ing people for money.....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Cheers CWG - sorry, but can you clarify the 'contributions' point -

1) WHO actually contributed ?

2) And what could/would be their answer when asked WHY they made these contributions - what were they expecting or hoping to get out of it ?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cheers CWG - sorry, but can you clarify the 'contributions' point -

1) WHO actually contributed ?

2) And what could/would be their answer when asked WHY they made these contributions - what were they expecting or hoping to get out of it ?

The club made the contributions.

What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The club made the contributions.

What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

And, crucially, it was clearly understood as part of their contract.

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The club made the contributions.

What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Cheers CWG - I realise now asking that question made me look a bit stupid but I DID know that's why they did it but wasn't the Huns argument that it WASN'T so they could get players they couldn't afford ?. They've never explained what it was for I'm just trying to put myself in Murray's shoes and I'd made that statement -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

And then someone asked me to explain exactly WHAT these contributions were for then - what could/would my answer be ?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cheers CWG - I realise now asking that question made me look a bit stupid but I DID know that's why they did it but wasn't the Huns argument that it WASN'T so they could get players they couldn't afford ?. They've never explained what it was for I'm just trying to put myself in Murray's shoes and I'd made that statement -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

And then someone asked me to explain exactly WHAT these contributions were for then - what could/would my answer be ?

Ah, I get you.

Like I say, though, he is correct in what he says. The "contributions" were not earnings. But he's deflecting.

The follow-up question should be "but, SDM, it's not the contributions TO the trusts that are the issue here. Would you now agree with the Court that the payments BY the trusts are earnings?"

[G B Young]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...tles-1-4496082

SFA quick to try and airbrush over the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.

[CropleyWasGod]

A succinct summary from CA Tax magazine. Much better than the nonsense in the Record today.

Tax advisers generally, together with employers with similar Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements, have been waiting for seven years for this final judgement to emerge. It is therefore pleasing to have a final, binding decision which can now be relied upon by employers and their tax advisers. Having followed the debate through two tribunal hearings and a Court of Session hearing, it is clear that the unanimous Supreme Court judgement handed down by Lord Hodge, which has been the best part of four months in the making, has also been a difficult and complicated process.

The three key issues being reviewed by the Supreme Court were whether the £47+ million paid from offshore EBTs to over 80 players and staff did in fact constitute earnings under ICTA 1988 and ITEPA 2003; whether the deeming provisions within the legislation were sufficient to capture the payments as earnings and whether each recipient was sufficiently close to the funds that this meant they had been placed unreservedly at their disposal.

Lord Hodge agreed with the First Tier Tribunal dissenting judge Dr Poon’s assessment that “the legislative code for emoluments has primacy over the benefits code in relation to loans”. This appears to have been a crucial deciding factor in this case, and the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision that the three key issues pointed towards earnings from an employment, making the payments liable to PAYE and NICs.

It now appears that BDO, liquidators to Rangers Football Club, will be liable for any taxes deemed to be due under this ruling. It is unclear whether the players who were the original beneficiaries of the EBT could be asked to pay any back taxes by HMRC.

It is important to note that since the 'Rangers' EBT was first set up, tax practice and attitudes to tax avoidance have moved on. The introduction of the DOTAS (Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) rules, changes to penalty regimes and more recently the introduction of accelerated payment notices and follower notices have changed the climate. Additionally, all the main professional bodies for tax advisers have agreed to revised Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation rules, which establish standards in relation to tax planning.

[Crazyhorse]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And, crucially, it was clearly understood as part of their contract.

And was it not also confirmed in writing (the undeclared side letters). Or have I misunderstood their function?

[Keith_M]

Apparently Paul Baxendale-Walker, the guy who introduced the concept of EBTs to the Murray Group and Rangers has had a change of career.


He's now a Porn Star!




I know I should be surprised but......

[gerry70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And was it not also confirmed in writing (the undeclared side letters). Or have I misunderstood their function?

Petrie is on SFA board so is he in agreement with their statement that they will do nothing?

Dempster is on the League board who will look into it.

Celtic the only club so far to comment - does anyone expect Hibs to make a public comment, and do you think they should?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Apparently Paul Baxendale-Walker, the guy who introduced the concept of EBTs to the Murray Group and Rangers has had a change of career.


He's now a Porn Star!




I know I should be surprised but......

He was a "porn-baron" (Whatever TF that is... perhaps 1 rank below a Porn-Duke) before his name surfaced in the RFC case. He also owned Loaded for a while.

There's plenty goss on him out there. eg...Struck off as a solicitor for impersonating an HMRC officer.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Petrie is on SFA board so is he in agreement with their statement that they will do nothing?

Dempster is on the League board who will look into it.

Celtic the only club so far to comment - does anyone expect Hibs to make a public comment, and do you think they should?

I don't expect a comment from Hibs again. Despite us losing out to financially doped teams the whole decade I expect us to do absolutely nothing about it. And there are still no FFP rules in Scottish football and is happening again right now with the new Rangers currently racking up the debts again who will likely take a European spot from us this season but we will just doff our cap to them again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk