The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[The Don]

People asking about Celtics use of EBT's if I recall correctly they used the EBT scheme in exactly the same way Rangers did however Later HMRC made the offer to clubs to pay a reduced amount of tax immediately or risk the full amount being paid plus penalties if it goes to court. Celtic along with Arsenal and a few other clubs took the deal on offer and settled. Rangers were offered exactly the same deal and basically in their usual arrogant self said F off to HMRC. This is now the outcome.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doctor jambo]

They should be made to replace their 5 stars with 5 asterisks too - fits in well

Just change one star to brown.

That would suffice

[I P Knightley]

The Clumpany - letter to Peter Lawell:

 

https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/a-letter-to-peter-lawwell/

What a pompous blowhard.

[DETTY29]

People asking about Celtics use of EBT's if I recall correctly they used the EBT scheme in exactly the same way Rangers did however Later HMRC made the offer to clubs to pay a reduced amount of tax immediately or risk the full amount being paid plus penalties if it goes to court. Celtic along with Arsenal and a few other clubs took the deal on offer and settled. Rangers were offered exactly the same deal and basically in their usual arrogant self said F off to HMRC. This is now the outcome.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Murray looked for a ?10m full and final settlement.

 

Her Madge's RCs (Revenue and Customs) cry was 'No Surrender'.

 

Sorry used that twice today.

[Unknown user]

If a company with the agreement of the employee wishes to put earned money into an EBT, after tax has been paid on it, then it would be perfectly legal. If that is what you are arguing, then I would agree with that.

 

IIRC the government introduced changes in 2010 or 2011 that changed the tax treatment of EBTs so that they were no longer tax efficient investments.

That's pretty much it, I'm really questioning whether the use of EBTs is actually illegal in itself as some seem to be suggesting.

 

The way I figure it is that there's nothing to stop EBTs being used now, so they're legal. BUT if payments to these trusts are earnings and not discretionary then tax is due.

 

Rangers weren't guilty of using EBTs, they were guilty of avoiding tax.

Nitpicking I know but I think it's an important distinction.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

That's pretty much it, I'm really questioning whether the use of EBTs is actually illegal in itself as some seem to be suggesting.

 

The way I figure it is that there's nothing to stop EBTs being used now, so they're legal. BUT if payments to these trusts are earnings and not discretionary then tax is due.

 

Rangers weren't guilty of using EBTs, they were guilty of avoiding tax.

Nitpicking I know but I think it's an important distinction.

 

Convicted tax cheats with a convicted tax cheating chairman.

[jambovambo]

That's pretty much it, I'm really questioning whether the use of EBTs is actually illegal in itself as some seem to be suggesting.

 

The way I figure it is that there's nothing to stop EBTs being used now, so they're legal. BUT if payments to these trusts are earnings and not discretionary then tax is due.

 

Rangers weren't guilty of using EBTs, they were guilty of avoiding tax.

Nitpicking I know but I think it's an important distinction.

Mr Pedant in me says it was evasion not avoidance ...

[Justin Z]

That's absolutely right--EBTs have a proper use.  Rangers used them improperly by putting wages in them instead of discretionary funds.  If companies and their employees were allowed to do what Rangers did, the tax code would need to be rewritten or HMRC would lose the "R" because there'd be no revenue once everyone figured that out.

[The Don]

That's pretty much it, I'm really questioning whether the use of EBTs is actually illegal in itself as some seem to be suggesting.

 

The way I figure it is that there's nothing to stop EBTs being used now, so they're legal. BUT if payments to these trusts are earnings and not discretionary then tax is due.

 

Rangers weren't guilty of using EBTs, they were guilty of avoiding tax.

Nitpicking I know but I think it's an important distinction.

Either way they are guilty of cheating. They bought and paid players they would never have afforded if they were not abusing the EBT scheme and cheating the tax man.

 

EBT's are normally only used for one off discretionary payments.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unknown user]

Mr Pedant in me says it was evasion not avoidance ...

Thank you Mr Pedant I can never remember which is which!

 

For the record, I'm not saying Oldco's actions were above board or excusable by the way, just for the sake of clarity

[reaths17]

my biggest gripe and anybody who bothers to read my posts will know i have a few, is...i pay my taxes on my pittence of a wage, week in week out every year from the day i left school, this club/david murray and co have went out of their way not to pay due taxes, and they have accepted the praise/adulation from supporters, the whole shebang has lorded it over everyone else, i dont get so much as a pat on the back and these ****ers have the temerity to greet/whinge/moan about it and try to blame everybody else for their situation, it's no as if any of them are on the breadline.

 

pay yer dues ya cheating bassas

[jambovambo]

@Pmacgiollabhain: There's now clearly a rearguard action by the Stenographer Estate to minimise, mitigate and deflect on behalf of the dead Ibrox club's EBTs

[Daydream Believer]

I think that everyone has a good understanding of EBT's now but the rangers case has given them a bit of a bogyman image so lets clear it up once and for all. 

 

They've been around for a long time, and they were a nice solution to a legislative problem.

 

If you were a kind, benevolent employer in the 1930's then you may find yourself with an employee who had fallen on hard times. Perhaps an employee had a wife who had passed away and a couple of kids to look after. Being a decent bloke, you want to help him out, but it seems a bit rough that the only way to give him cash will attract income tax, so you go to the tax authority and ask if there's any way you can do it that will let him have the full amount. The revenue (also being decent blokes) look to the legislation and decide that there's not really any way to do it. At the same time, they realise that if they allow employers to hand out lumps of cash to employees tax free then pretty soon nobody is going to be paying any tax. The sensible way to go, is to create a mechanism where an employer could pay lump sums, not to individuals, but to independent persons (trustees) who could then pay out cash to employees like poor old Joe who lost his wife, if they think that he is deserving. At this point the EBT is born, and what a wonderful mechanism it is!

 

Life goes on and people get greedy, and tax gets more complicated and of course wealthy people want to get more wealthy, so they come up with a way to *******ise what was once a nice thing. Rather than trustees paying out small amounts of cash to employees who need it out of the kindness of the employer's hearts, they start specifying (through, for example the use of side letters) what employees get what (as loans that will likely not be repaid). HMRC (understandably) doesn't like this very much and the litigation ensues.

 

Are they legal? As others have said - absolutely, because their original intended use still exists. Not only that, but other sensible uses have sprung up, e.g. to hold shares that are bought and sold by employees perfectly legitimately (if you take part in your employers approved share scheme or SAYE scheme then it's not unlikely that you buy them or sell them to/from an EBT). No problem there.

 

So the question is not whether EBT's are good or bad, legal or illegal. You'd be as well asking whether company car schemes are good or bad if you found out that Rangers hadn't declared car benefits on P11d's.

 

As the judges said, it really does come down to common sense at the end of the day, but IMO the abuse of EBT's, a mechanism designed to help society, really is pretty low.

[Riccarton3]

@Pmacgiollabhain: There's now clearly a rearguard action by the Stenographer Estate to minimise, mitigate and deflect on behalf of the dead Ibrox club's EBTs

More revisionism and fairy stories required.

 

 

The press are just a distraction from the football authorities failures. There to muddy waters.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Riccarton3

[jambovambo]

 

@alextomo: SPFL: conference call held for Board this afternoon to discuss recent Court decision on Rangers Big Tax Case

[Paolo]

With Hearts, we were chased for and had to pay tax on players who we had paid tax on in Lithuania before they were loaned to us. It was decided that we should have paid tax on them here rather than Lithuania, if I remember correctly?

 

Also, didn't Ogilvie approach Romanov with this EBT scheme, but he dismissed it as being dodgy?

You don't. Nothing was actually decided. There was some debate. Eventually it was agreed to pay the UK tax, but without any late fees, or penalties, which suggests HMRC were. not certain they were correct.

 

Most of that tax debt was also paid.

[Strachsuit]

I think that everyone has a good understanding of EBT's now but the rangers case has given them a bit of a bogyman image so lets clear it up once and for all. 

 

They've been around for a long time, and they were a nice solution to a legislative problem.

 

If you were a kind, benevolent employer in the 1930's then you may find yourself with an employee who had fallen on hard times. Perhaps an employee had a wife who had passed away and a couple of kids to look after. Being a decent bloke, you want to help him out, but it seems a bit rough that the only way to give him cash will attract income tax, so you go to the tax authority and ask if there's any way you can do it that will let him have the full amount. The revenue (also being decent blokes) look to the legislation and decide that there's not really any way to do it. At the same time, they realise that if they allow employers to hand out lumps of cash to employees tax free then pretty soon nobody is going to be paying any tax. The sensible way to go, is to create a mechanism where an employer could pay lump sums, not to individuals, but to independent persons (trustees) who could then pay out cash to employees like poor old Joe who lost his wife, if they think that he is deserving. At this point the EBT is born, and what a wonderful mechanism it is!

 

Life goes on and people get greedy, and tax gets more complicated and of course wealthy people want to get more wealthy, so they come up with a way to *******ise what was once a nice thing. Rather than trustees paying out small amounts of cash to employees who need it out of the kindness of the employer's hearts, they start specifying (through, for example the use of side letters) what employees get what (as loans that will likely not be repaid). HMRC (understandably) doesn't like this very much and the litigation ensues.

 

Are they legal? As others have said - absolutely, because their original intended use still exists. Not only that, but other sensible uses have sprung up, e.g. to hold shares that are bought and sold by employees perfectly legitimately (if you take part in your employers approved share scheme or SAYE scheme then it's not unlikely that you buy them or sell them to/from an EBT). No problem there.

 

So the question is not whether EBT's are good or bad, legal or illegal. You'd be as well asking whether company car schemes are good or bad if you found out that Rangers hadn't declared car benefits on P11d's.

 

As the judges said, it really does come down to common sense at the end of the day, but IMO the abuse of EBT's, a mechanism designed to help society, really is pretty low.

 

Top post.

 

A really good explanation of the beginnings of EBTs and how they came about. I totally agree with your last comment too, it was horrible, snake-like behaviour from SDM and Rangers to abuse EBTs in this way.

[Footballfirst]

You don't. Nothing was actually decided. There was some debate. Eventually it was agreed to pay the UK tax, but without any late fees, or penalties, which suggests HMRC were. not certain they were correct.

 

Most of that tax debt was also paid.

 

No it wasn't.  We hadn't paid any of the installments before we went into administration.

 

From the 2012 accounts.

 

[Paolo]

No it wasn't. We hadn't paid any of the installments before we went into administration.

 

From the 2012 accounts.

 

Hearts tax bill.JPG

Apologies. Thanks for correcting me. I should read the accounts in more detail.

 

Was I right though, in saying that, no decison was actually made on whether we were right or wrong?

[niblick1874]

I think that everyone has a good understanding of EBT's now but the rangers case has given them a bit of a bogyman image so lets clear it up once and for all. 

 

They've been around for a long time, and they were a nice solution to a legislative problem.

 

If you were a kind, benevolent employer in the 1930's then you may find yourself with an employee who had fallen on hard times. Perhaps an employee had a wife who had passed away and a couple of kids to look after. Being a decent bloke, you want to help him out, but it seems a bit rough that the only way to give him cash will attract income tax, so you go to the tax authority and ask if there's any way you can do it that will let him have the full amount. The revenue (also being decent blokes) look to the legislation and decide that there's not really any way to do it. At the same time, they realise that if they allow employers to hand out lumps of cash to employees tax free then pretty soon nobody is going to be paying any tax. The sensible way to go, is to create a mechanism where an employer could pay lump sums, not to individuals, but to independent persons (trustees) who could then pay out cash to employees like poor old Joe who lost his wife, if they think that he is deserving. At this point the EBT is born, and what a wonderful mechanism it is!

 

Life goes on and people get greedy, and tax gets more complicated and of course wealthy people want to get more wealthy, so they come up with a way to *******ise what was once a nice thing. Rather than trustees paying out small amounts of cash to employees who need it out of the kindness of the employer's hearts, they start specifying (through, for example the use of side letters) what employees get what (as loans that will likely not be repaid). HMRC (understandably) doesn't like this very much and the litigation ensues.

 

Are they legal? As others have said - absolutely, because their original intended use still exists. Not only that, but other sensible uses have sprung up, e.g. to hold shares that are bought and sold by employees perfectly legitimately (if you take part in your employers approved share scheme or SAYE scheme then it's not unlikely that you buy them or sell them to/from an EBT). No problem there.

 

So the question is not whether EBT's are good or bad, legal or illegal. You'd be as well asking whether company car schemes are good or bad if you found out that Rangers hadn't declared car benefits on P11d's.

 

As the judges said, it really does come down to common sense at the end of the day, but IMO the abuse of EBT's, a mechanism designed to help society, really is pretty low.

Well said.

[hueyview]

Blood pressure warning - DJ blowing out of his @rse :

dj was a ranger who was loved by the supporters in the past......but he aint that popular anymore........

http://m.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13949546.Derek_Johnstone__The_EBT_saga_will_have_no_bearing_on_Rangers_going_forward__so_lets_hope_we_have_heard_the_end_of_it/?ref=twtrec

 

(Edit : Sorry I see he has his own thread ...)

[hueyview]

When this thread started, i didn't need..."just for men" for my hair, Terry Butcher was a good manager  . and celtic were doing alright in Europe...........

[Footballfirst]

Apologies. Thanks for correcting me. I should read the accounts in more detail.

 

Was I right though, in saying that, no decison was actually made on whether we were right or wrong?

 

I can't recall precisely, but I think that we had received legal advice indicating that any appeal against the assessment at an FTTT would fail, therefore we should seek a settlement.

 

The settlement was on reasonable terms that a solvent Hearts (e.g. now) could have repaid.  The fact that we didn't pay anything was evidence in itself of the perilous state of the club. In the end HMRC voted against the CVA, but didn't have enough debt attached to their vote to prevent it succeeding.  

[Paolo]

I can't recall precisely, but I think that we had received legal advice indicating that any appeal against the assessment at an FTTT would fail, therefore we should seek a settlement.

 

The settlement was on reasonable terms that a solvent Hearts (e.g. now) could have repaid. The fact that we didn't pay anything was evidence in itself of the perilous state of the club. In the end HMRC voted against the CVA, but didn't have enough debt attached to their vote to prevent it succeeding.

Thanks for clarifying. It is appreciated.

[Don Dan]

Tainted, tarnished, trophies and titles but still no word from the Tits at Hampden.

[i wish jj was my dad]

We missed a massive opportunity to clean up Scottish football and clear out the complicit authorities in 2012.  This might be the last chance for fans to force their clubs to challenge the status quo and force the GFA/SPFL to start promoting the interests of Scottish football and not just the bigot brothers. 

 

Cometh the hour cometh the lady perhaps?

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

Tainted, tarnished, trophies and titles but still no word from the Tits at Hampden.

Here's a thought: Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour De France titles when he was subsequently proved to have cheated to win them...

[jamboz]

Here's a thought: Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour De France titles when he was subsequently proved to have cheated to win them...

Same with the Melbourne Storm when they were found to have cheated. No complaints or whinging about it either, from them or the media.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Thanks for clarifying. It is appreciated.

I remember just before we were told to pay, Romanov made a statement prior to it where he talked about enemies within football, the media, Celtic and Rangers minded administrations and officials and the the tax man all trying to sabotage him/us, and that because of this he was no longer interested in Scottish Football. I remember at the time being unsure what he meant with the tax man comment, as there hadn't been much talk about tax problems previously.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Bilel Mohsni

[CollyWolly]

Tainted, tarnished, trophies and titles but still no word from the Tits at Hampden.

I wouldn't expect them to say or do anything until all possible appeals have been explored or declined.

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

I wouldn't expect them to say or do anything.

FTFY

[JamboAl]

You don't. Nothing was actually decided. There was some debate. Eventually it was agreed to pay the UK tax, but without any late fees, or penalties, which suggests HMRC were. not certain they were correct.

 

Most of that tax debt was also paid.

While I don't know the ins and outs of our case, I would say that it doesn't suggest that at all,

[tcjambo]

Blood pressure warning - DJ blowing out of his @rse :

 

http://m.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13949546.Derek_Johnstone__The_EBT_saga_will_have_no_bearing_on_Rangers_going_forward__so_lets_hope_we_have_heard_the_end_of_it/?ref=twtrec

 

(Edit : Sorry I see he has his own thread ...)

Awful article. No attempt to analyse and full of wishful thinking. FWIW I think they'll be stripped of the titles either sooner or later  - their position is unsustainable given the judgement.( albeit this is all dependant on failure to successfully appeal it).

[B.S.]

The fact that the stripping of titles is even being debated shows how corrupt our game is. Its an open and shut case. No need to debate it

[I P Knightley]

I think that everyone has a good understanding of EBT's now but the rangers case has given them a bit of a bogyman image so lets clear it up once and for all. 

 

They've been around for a long time, and they were a nice solution to a legislative problem.

 

If you were a kind, benevolent employer in the 1930's then you may find yourself with an employee who had fallen on hard times. Perhaps an employee had a wife who had passed away and a couple of kids to look after. Being a decent bloke, you want to help him out, but it seems a bit rough that the only way to give him cash will attract income tax, so you go to the tax authority and ask if there's any way you can do it that will let him have the full amount. The revenue (also being decent blokes) look to the legislation and decide that there's not really any way to do it. At the same time, they realise that if they allow employers to hakknd out lumps of cash to employees tax free then pretty soon nobody is going to be paying any tax. The sensible way to go, is to create a mechanism where an employer could pay lump sums, not to individuals, but to independent persons (trustees) who could then pay out cash to employees like poor old Joe who lost his wife, if they think that he is deserving. At this point the EBT is born, and what a wonderful mechanism it is!

 

Life goes on and people get greedy, and tax gets more complicated and of course wealthy people want to get more wealthy, so they come up with a way to *******ise what was once a nice thing. Rather than trustees paying out small amounts of cash to employees who need it out of the kindness of the employer's hearts, they start specifying (through, for example the use of side letters) what employees get what (as loans that will likely not be repaid). HMRC (understandably) doesn't like this very much and the litigation ensues.

 

Are they legal? As others have said - absolutely, because their original intended use still exists. Not only that, but other sensible uses have sprung up, e.g. to hold shares that are bought and sold by employees perfectly legitimately (if you take part in your employers approved share scheme or SAYE scheme then it's not unlikely that you buy them or sell them to/from an EBT). No problem there.

 

So the question is not whether EBT's are good or bad, legal or illegal. You'd be as well asking whether company car schemes are good or bad if you found out that Rangers hadn't declared car benefits on P11d's.

 

As the judges said, it really does come down to common sense at the end of the day, but IMO the abuse of EBT's, a mechanism designed to help society, really is pretty low.

You can't leave it like that!!

 

What happened to Joe and the kids? I won't sleep soundly tonight with worry.

[Unknown user]

You can't leave it like that!!

 

What happened to Joe and the kids? I won't sleep soundly tonight with worry.

Bought a racehorse and never paid the money back

[Daydream Believer]

Well said.

Tried to send you a PM mate but couldn't. Maybe your in box is full?

[Feeno]

Does anyone know specifically what witheld evidence was used in the latest ruling?

Edited November 7, 2015 by Feeno

[Daveandal]

If we are in the same situation once all appeals are over Rangers must be stripped of their titles. Anything else would be bringing the game into further disrepute.

[chrisyboy7]

There is only one outcome to all of this. Like every other sporting event in history when there's any form of cheating. The medal/trophy is stripped. If this doesn't happen then it's a first and basically ends Scottish football as a fair competition in the eyes of the world. What makes this worse is the Rangers fans seem to thing it's ok and accepting. It's no wonder every other fan of every other clubs against them and wants them in the ground again. Their arrogance is overwhelming. Their club has just announced losses of nearly 8 mill in one season. This should also be against league rules as every club should have a business plan and funds in place for the season ahead.

Our games a joke. Hearts where rightly punished for miss management & rightly relegated. But our club is a shining example of how to accept our wrong doings and move onwards & upwards. Our fans are also the best fans in the world for binding together in tough financial times to aid in steering the ship to safety. Unlike the Orcs that watched it sink faster than the titanic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Riccarton3]

We are occasionally told by some commentators on the game that there is likely to be no appetite to remove/void titles but they never say from who. Fans? Clubs? Or is that a reference to our football authorities. Why no appetite? It should mean nothing to the authorities in any emotional sense. Just an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

[stevie1874]

Best case scenario for me would be the people running the game try once again to sweep this under the carpet, this causes uproar from supporters which in turn brings about meaningful change at the top of the game in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry forgot to add after all the change Rangers are hammered by new authorities 

[Jamboelite]

Im fairly confident hee haw will be done there will be a bit if an outcry and then we move on.

[Deevers]

Im fairly confident hee haw will be done there will be a bit if an outcry and then we move on.

 

 

Up to every other football fan in Scotland to continually remind them and the authorities of the truth.

[adayinmay]

Listened to Sportsound podcast from Nov 5th and couldn't believe my ears listening to Richard Wilson. He was incredible with his revision of history. He claimed the LNS report judged its sporting integrity based on the evidence of the side letters and NOT on the illegal use of the EBT's and non tax payment on them.

He claimed there was no apatite to punish Rangers further as the fans have been through enough!! Incredulous stuff.

This is how the media works. Twist details to establish their view as fact and tell us their chosen view is what people want.

[Rudolf's Mate]

Double edge sword for me. I'm against the stripping and also re-allocating of titles. Regardless it happens in every other sport and if it doesn't happen here it'll rightly have people asking why whilst putting our governing body under the spotlight yet again.

[Tasavallan]

Same with the Melbourne Storm when they were found to have cheated. No complaints or whinging about it either, from them or the media.

The Storm are a far better comparison than Armstrong who was banned by the French who never liked him anyway and were trying for years to find cause.

 

The Storm were the establishment club set up in 1999 by the NRL Commissioners to bring rugby league to an Australian Rules dominated Melbourne. Players had to be imported into Victoria and to maintain the salary cap the likes of Slater, Smith, Cronk, Inglis, etc from Queensland, were given ex-gratia payments and 'gifts' not declared to the NRL or the taxman.

 

In 2010 they were found guilty of serious breaches of the salary cap and all honours won (including those by reserves & juniors) since 2000 expunged from the records and awarded to 2nd placed club.

 

As far as Rangers are concerned, if found guilty of the EBT then the SFA must erase all records from the ownership of Minty including the 10-in-a-row period. But I doubt the SFA will so act.

[milky_26]

Houston & his lunatic SoS mob have a new banner for doing another demonstration outside the club store at 2pm today. [emoji1]

 

could Big Mike go after them again because they have used the sports direct logo without permission?

[Ron Swanson]

could Big Mike go after them again because they have used the sports direct logo without permission?

Please please please. He seems to be a horrible human. Quite why and how he is allowed so much air time is ridiculous.

 

Although listening to the likes of tom English concisely tearing him a new one is very satisfying.

[Unknown user]

Listened to Sportsound podcast from Nov 5th and couldn't believe my ears listening to Richard Wilson. He was incredible with his revision of history. He claimed the LNS report judged its sporting integrity based on the evidence of the side letters and NOT on the illegal use of the EBT's and non tax payment on them.

He claimed there was no apatite to punish Rangers further as the fans have been through enough!! Incredulous stuff.

This is how the media works. Twist details to establish their view as fact and tell us their chosen view is what people want.

Is that not right enough though?