The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Musemic]

Feel quite bad for Ricksen if HMRC start hunting these guys for tax

Whilst I wouldn't wish his illness on my worst enemy, if it's decided in the Supreme Court that he has avoided paying tax then HMRC should pursue him for payment in the same way as they would anyone else. 

[Unknown user]

The alleged offences occurred in Britain so therefore come under British Tax Law, I would have thought.

 

As we saw yesterday HMRC worked with the French Authorities, including arrests in France.

Good point, it's been some years since I worked in Collections for the Inland Revenue as was to be fair.

I wonder if they'll go as far for people who haven't done anything deliberately wrong - ignorance is no mitigation for what's due, but it might be for how far they're wiling to go.

[corryjambo]

Not so sure about feeling sorry for them. They all employ accountants and financial advisors to help them with their big fat pay cheques. I'll bet most of them were warned that this whole scheme could well have pitfalls. I pay my dues as far as tax is concerned, I don't feel any sense of sorrow for those who don't.

 

100% correct. In fact if any of these players had the sense (oxymoron alert) to take advice on this from a licensed financial advisor or a chartered accountant they might well have a case for making a claim against them for wrong advice being given if they were not warned off. I would hope that any professional advisor would have put in writing their advise not to become involved in this scheme.

 

Just as an aside, this EBT scheme was not "sold" exclusively to football players so there may be quite a few rich people looking over their shoulders with fear and trepidation awaiting the outcome of the appeal.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

How could so many people be involved and no one said a thing.

 

No way could this have been hidden.

 

Something would have come out and that would have been that.

 

To begin with the tic would have been all over that and that would have been that.

 

If this was true I am going to look stupid for calling people delusional

 

I am not going to look stupid.

 

It would be blatant cheating and the press would have been all over that.

 

Think of the headlines. Think of the sales.

 

There would be mayhem not to mention Armageddon.

 

If there was something untoward, I would have figured it out and a ten year old would have beaten me to it.

 

Somethings may not add up but some of the shit about refs is bull and goes along with the rest of the delusions they come out with.

 

The foul on McCoist  was inside the box.

 

More to be pitied than scolded.

 

Quite right, that's a very good point, and kind of flies in the face of any idea that the players, and other recipients of EBTs, were unaware that their 'tax free' payments were less than 100% kosher! For how else could so many people remain schtum?

 

Now that you've mentioned it, it suggests, to me, that each and every recipient of an EBT was given a nod and a wink to ensure their tax affairs were kept confidential, which would make any attempt to claim they had no idea that the scheme might have been illegal just another lie. The majority, after all, wanted side letter 'just in case', and if they felt that these side letters were necessary, then they clearly had some kind of doubts as to the legality of the scheme!

 

Hope that that, along with the complicity of the succulent lamb brigade, all aided and abetted by the 'Rangers Men' at the SFA, helps you to understand how it might be kept quiet for so long!

[Hagar the Horrible]

SDM revealed in court that he believed that, as a result of recent law changes, if the Supreme Court decision goes in HMRC's favour (expected in July), then HMRC will be pursuing the individual EBT recipients for the tax and not the Oldco, which would only be liable for NICs.  He said that the tax due would be assessed in the tax year 2018/19 and therefore be payable by the individuals in January 2020.

 

That came as as surprise to me and many in the court.

 

I have never seen anything in that regard from any legal source, although I do know that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, HMRC intends pursuing anyone involved in similar schemes who doesn?t repay their loan back to the trust before April 2019, as they will at that point treat the loan as income.

 

I don?t know if pursuit of such EBT holders would negate the claim against the club as double taxation, but I think SDM has confused the issue by his interpretation of the change in rules about unpaid loans.  Basically we are talking about the same thing. 

 

It could be that SDM has been contacted by HMRC, personally as an EBT recipient, and indicated what will happen if he doesn?t repay the loan.  If SDM?s ?6m was grossed up because it was deemed a net figure, then he would be the recipient of a ?4m PAYE bill himself.  If HMRC deem the ?6m as the gross figure, then he would be liable for 40% of that, or ?2.4m.

Well that one is straight of of the Royal Blue?  in post cases where these loans are offered, correct there is a point where either the loans get paid back, but that was writteb into the dual contracts that they did not need to.  But at that point of not having to pay back after the term of the loan, then either the individual pays the tax or the loanee does (Rangers)  however in the case where a recipient is not domiciled in this country (UK) then the individual has no legal obligation, but the company does(Rangers). 

 

Lots of people who then received this loan it will news to them thay they are now liable for the tax, but their hidden dual contracts quoted by those who have received them is if there was going to be any tax liability the SDM (Rangers) would pay this?

 

Has SDM just thrown an awfully lot of people under a bus????

[john5698]

The alleged offences occurred in Britain so therefore come under British Tax Law, I would have thought.

 

As we saw yesterday HMRC worked with the French Authorities, including arrests in France.

You are correct, the offences come under British Tax Law therefore it does not matter where they are just now, they will have to cough up. Happened to a pal of mine who tried to escape to Spain, took them a wee while to catch up with him but when the Spanish authorities caught up with him he had to pay up.They are worse than here, slapped him with a demand to pay within 28 days or his home would be auctioned of.

[jambovambo]

Anyway ...

 

.. all starts again in a minute or two.

[...a bit disco]

Booooooooo...!!!

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  6m6 minutes ago

More

Jury come into court. Judge says one juror is ill today so case cannot proceed Proceedings adjourned until tomorrow

[Jeff]

Ill you say? Probably been slipped a brown envelope

[CollyWolly]

Not declaring them and the side contracts, whether they are legal or not, was still in breach of SFA rules. so the players were still ineligible, meaning they were still cheating and gaining an unfair advantage.

True, but as far as I recall that offence has been dealt with (swept under the carpet already) and I doubt it will re-surface and impact on the 'new club' in any way.

[Mikey1874]

Drama

[Jambo-Jimbo]

True, but as far as I recall that offence has been dealt with (swept under the carpet already) and I doubt it will re-surface and impact on the 'new club' in any way.

 

Correct and that is why I believe what David Murray said yesterday as being a pivotal event in this whole saga.

 

The way I see it is this.

 

The side letters issue was swept under the carpet by the SFA because they could sweep it under the carpet, however the EBT issue can't be, as it's been the result of numerous court cases.

 

David Murray admitted under oath in court that Rangers' use of EBT's allowed them to afford players they couldn't have otherwise afforded, in other words they were paying players money via an EBT scheme.

Now if the Supreme Court finds in HMRC's favour and declares Rangers' use of their EBT scheme as being illegal, then by definition Rangers were paying their players by illegal means and that has to be against the rules.

 

And as it will be the law of the land (if HMRC win) the SFA can't just easily sweep it under the carpet or they will find themselves in court as well.

 

That's my take on it.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Shut up.

 

Nibs why don't you try and be a bit more constructive and hunt for a 'Paper Trail' that links David Murray into all of this scam.

 

You seen rather good at finding paper trails including ones even the FBI can't find.

 

So there you go, that's your task for today. 

[Mikey1874]

I think a film is more likely by this trial

 

Gerald Butler as Donald Findlay.

 

The sub plot between Murray and Findlay could be the main story. Supreme Court as the climax.

 

Or a soap opera

[Don Dan]

We have available for some soap opera writer, 1928 pages, available for a small fee of course.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Dannie Boy

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I think a film is more likely by this trial

 

Gerald Butler as Donald Findlay.

 

The sub plot between Murray and Findlay could be the main story. Supreme Court as the climax.

 

Or a soap opera

 

Never happen mate, it would be deemed as too far fetched and totally unbelievable.

[Unknown user]

Nibs why don't you try and be a bit more constructive and hunt for a 'Paper Trail' that links David Murray into all of this scam.

 

You seen rather good at finding paper trails including ones even the FBI can't find.

 

So there you go, that's your task for today.

Hey, Nibbles isn't going to look stupid you know!

[graygo]

On a bit of a side note, but is QC Findlay not breaking the law in this picture?

 

Probably, but not if you mean smoking a pipe in a car, that photo is a few years old and the law wasn't in place then.

 

I'm sure kerb crawling has been an offence for a number of years though.

[GorgieMIlls]

I think a film is more likely by this trial

 

Gerald Butler as Donald Findlay.

 

The sub plot between Murray and Findlay could be the main story. Supreme Court as the climax.

 

Or a soap opera

 

A title of 'The Big House has fallen'

[Hagar the Horrible]

I so want to play CW in the movie, or Fat Sally

[Jambof3tornado]

 

Booooooooo...!!!

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago

 

 

More

 

Jury come into court. Judge says one juror is ill today so case cannot proceed Proceedings adjourned until tomorrow

Farce of a system. How much has that cost for 1 juror being off sick?

[Unknown user]

I so want to play CW in the movie, or Fat Sally

I want to be Findlay, with his 70s Y-fronts model facial hair

 

[Don Dan]

Sdm under oath blows the LNS lie about no sporting advantage out the water. [emoji4]

Expect silence from the spfl/sfa. What will it take for these twats to act.

[doctor jambo]

pretty sure they will not pursue Ricksen- they can grant dispensation for a number of things- mainly being dead or close to it. It is always the responsibility of the tax payer to ensure they pay the correct amount. remember I was incorrectly coded by an employer - I knew nothing about these things. After a while  I got a pay slip that indicated I had been on the wrong code and it was being reclaimed - instead of clearing ?3500 that month I got ?1.23.......... The EBT guys will be in a lot of trouble- they either have to repay the loans or cough the tax

[CollyWolly]

Correct and that is why I believe what David Murray said yesterday as being a pivotal event in this whole saga.

 

The way I see it is this.

 

The side letters issue was swept under the carpet by the SFA because they could sweep it under the carpet, however the EBT issue can't be, as it's been the result of numerous court cases.

 

David Murray admitted under oath in court that Rangers' use of EBT's allowed them to afford players they couldn't have otherwise afforded, in other words they were paying players money via an EBT scheme.

Now if the Supreme Court finds in HMRC's favour and declares Rangers' use of their EBT scheme as being illegal, then by definition Rangers were paying their players by illegal means and that has to be against the rules.

 

And as it will be the law of the land (if HMRC win) the SFA can't just easily sweep it under the carpet or they will find themselves in court as well.

 

That's my take on it.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree ere if you expect the current Rangers to get into any real trouble over the previous Rangers EBT scheme. Not going to happen.

 

HMRC's continued interest in this is 3 fold.

 

1. To have the Rangers operation of EBT's declared and confirmed after all appeals as being unlawful. That has a huge impact for other companies who did the same or similar. And not just football clubs.

2. Then to pursue the individuals involved in the Rangers EBT for unpaid taxes

3. and most importantly, to go after all the UK clubs who have ever operated a similar EBT system, and the clubs involved and the amounts involved are FAR bigger than Rangers - apparently.

 

The only impact you might see on Rangers FC as they are today is they (the SFA-SPFL) may go back and strip them of historical titles. However that's a snowballs chance in hell IMO.

[doctor jambo]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree ere if you expect the current Rangers to get into any real trouble over the previous Rangers EBT scheme. Not going to happen.

 

HMRC's continued interest in this is 3 fold.

 

1. To have the Rangers operation of EBT's declared and confirmed after all appeals as being unlawful. That has a huge impact for other companies who did the same or similar. And not just football clubs.

2. Then to pursue the individuals involved in the Rangers EBT for unpaid taxes

3. and most importantly, to go after all the UK clubs who have ever operated a similar EBT system, and the clubs involved and the amounts involved are FAR bigger than Rangers - apparently.

 

The only impact you might see on Rangers FC as they are today is they (the SFA-SPFL) may go back and strip them of historical titles. However that's a snowballs chance in hell IMO.

There is zero chance of Sevco being affected- and seeing as they are a brand new company, then that is the right thing

[CollyWolly]

They'll do nothing, they are complicit in covering it up, the fact it's out in the open for everyone to see their cheating is good though. [emoji4]

Assuming they could act and would act, what is it that you would expect them to do. Why does it even matter now ? They lose a few titles and trophies at the absolute worst. So what ??

[kila]

I think a film is more likely by this trial

 

Gerald Butler as Donald Findlay.

 

The sub plot between Murray and Findlay could be the main story. Supreme Court as the climax.

 

Or a soap opera

 

Fringe Show would be a shout

[CollyWolly]

I'd settle for them being stripped of the titles & cups won due to inaccurately fielded players as per the rules & an asterisk being put in their place in the honours list for that year too as a reminder that cheating doesn't pay.

I'm far more concerned about this as a taxpayer rather than a football fan. These individuals have benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme to the tune of getting on for ?100 million. Its fecking shocking quite frankly and I hope every last one of them gets pursued vigorously for every last penny. They are quick enough and eager enough and efficient enough to get a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand back from Joe Bloggs and I hope they don't let this rest, assuming the appeal goes their way.

Edited April 27, 2017 by CollyWolly

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree ere if you expect the current Rangers to get into any real trouble over the previous Rangers EBT scheme. Not going to happen.

 

HMRC's continued interest in this is 3 fold.

 

1. To have the Rangers operation of EBT's declared and confirmed after all appeals as being unlawful. That has a huge impact for other companies who did the same or similar. And not just football clubs.

2. Then to pursue the individuals involved in the Rangers EBT for unpaid taxes

3. and most importantly, to go after all the UK clubs who have ever operated a similar EBT system, and the clubs involved and the amounts involved are FAR bigger than Rangers - apparently.

 

The only impact you might see on Rangers FC as they are today is they (the SFA-SPFL) may go back and strip them of historical titles. However that's a snowballs chance in hell IMO.

 

But but but they're the same club so they keep telling everybody, the very same club which has won 54 league titles, the very same club which won titles during the years that EBT's were used.

 

I do agree however, that the SFA will do everything in their power to sweep sweep sweep all this away.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Assuming they could act and would act, what is it that you would expect them to do. Why does it even matter now ? They lose a few titles and trophies at the absolute worst. So what ??

Surprised you even need to ask that, it's such a natural thing to want to see cheaters lose what they cheated to win. Haven't you noticed it happens in other sports whenever cheating is uncovered, why should football be different?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I'm far more concerned about this as a taxpayer rather than a football fan. These individuals have benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme to the tune of getting on for ?100 million. Its fecking shocking quite frankly and I hope every last one of them gets pursued vigorously for every last penny. They and quick enough and eager enough and efficient enough to get a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand back from Joe Bloggs and I hope they don't let this rest, assuming the appeal goes their way.

 

It's not just the unpaid tax, what about the millions of pounds which the BoS loaned Murray with next to no questions asked.

 

How many people got kicked out of their houses or businesses that went under because the Bank of Scotland wouldn't loan or give them a little bit more time to pay, but they could loan millions to Murray who eventually ended up owing the bank ?200m, how many small businesses could that have saved, how many jobs could it have saved or even created.

[269miles]

Correct and that is why I believe what David Murray said yesterday as being a pivotal event in this whole saga.

 

The way I see it is this.

 

The side letters issue was swept under the carpet by the SFA because they could sweep it under the carpet, however the EBT issue can't be, as it's been the result of numerous court cases.

 

David Murray admitted under oath in court that Rangers' use of EBT's allowed them to afford players they couldn't have otherwise afforded, in other words they were paying players money via an EBT scheme.

Now if the Supreme Court finds in HMRC's favour and declares Rangers' use of their EBT scheme as being illegal, then by definition Rangers were paying their players by illegal means and that has to be against the rules.

 

And as it will be the law of the land (if HMRC win) the SFA can't just easily sweep it under the carpet or they will find themselves in court as well.

 

That's my take on it.

What's the  rules on (not) paying your social taxes ?  Genuine question. In light of the actions at NUFC? W Ham yesterday the media were reporting the potential for points deductions. 

[BelgeJambo]

Should they still be allowed to wear the "G" on their badge?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

What's the  rules on (not) paying your social taxes ?  Genuine question. In light of the actions at NUFC? W Ham yesterday the media were reporting the potential for points deductions. 

 

Well what happened with us when we were late with paying tax.

 

Couldn't register any new players for one of the top of my head.

 

Sure points deductions were mentioned as well as not being able to play in Europe amongst other sanctions.

[I P Knightley]

He used the future season ticket money that was Sevco's future income. Thus he used Sevco money to buy Sevco.

 

 

 

But this is how company acquisition works. You pay off the previous owner/creditors and then, over a period of time, you re-fill your pockets (or pay off your borrowings) out of the earnings of the company you bought. It's semantics.

 

 

(Apologies for being a day or two behind the curve if this has already been addressed). 

[davieholt]

What's the  rules on (not) paying your social taxes ?  Genuine question. In light of the actions at NUFC? W Ham yesterday the media were reporting the potential for points deductions. 

 

Good questions but only apply to a company in liquidation. Could and should result in title stripping for the record and finally lay to rest the fans boast of being the most successful club ever to have existed.

[Feeno]

Should they still be allowed to wear the "G" on their badge?

 

 

"Should I continue? Took out the "G" cos the "G" aint in you"

[sandylejambo]

having titles taken away should not bother the new club supporters, those titles where won by the old rangers (no relation). 

[Gizmo]

It's not just the unpaid tax, what about the millions of pounds which the BoS loaned Murray with next to no questions asked.

 

How many people got kicked out of their houses or businesses that went under because the Bank of Scotland wouldn't loan or give them a little bit more time to pay, but they could loan millions to Murray who eventually ended up owing the bank ?200m, how many small businesses could that have saved, how many jobs could it have saved or even created.

 

No one seems to ever have pursued the allegations that Murray's contact at the Bank of Scotland was used to his advantage and to the disadvantage of competing clubs who were also bankrolled by the BoS.

 

That, if true, was an absolute scandal.

 

 

[itsnomarooned]

Leaving to one side who this all concerns, always seems a bit unfair in retrospectively pursuing people.  At the time EBTs (or whatever scheme) were legal, or at least hadn't been the subject of a tribunal to determine their status.  Once they are considered illegal then they should not be used but to go after folk who used them at a time when there was no issue just doesn't really feel right.

[jambovambo]

 

 

pretty sure they will not pursue Ricksen- they can grant dispensation for a number of things- mainly being dead or close to it. It is always the responsibility of the tax payer to ensure they pay the correct amount. remember I was incorrectly coded by an employer - I knew nothing about these things. After a while I got a pay slip that indicated I had been on the wrong code and it was being reclaimed - instead of clearing ?3500 that month I got ?1.23.......... The EBT guys will be in a lot of trouble- they either have to repay the loans or cough the tax

Right-justified, eh ?

 

Arty

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Leaving to one side who this all concerns, always seems a bit unfair in retrospectively pursuing people.  At the time EBTs (or whatever scheme) were legal, or at least hadn't been the subject of a tribunal to determine their status.  Once they are considered illegal then they should not be used but to go after folk who used them at a time when there was no issue just doesn't really feel right.

It's the advantageous way, in favour of the wealthy tax dodgers, that the law works that creates this eventual problem for them. As things stand, a newly invented tax scheme's legality isn't tested until it's first discovered (by HMRC), investigated by them, then litigated against.

 

If they are wise, the dodger will use that money to fund some other, legitimate, money making scheme rather than spend it on Ferraris or jags, aware that, one day, the taxman might come calling. As we've seen with the Rangers'  EBT case, that can take years, in the meantime the wealthy tax dodgers continue to avoid paying the full amount of tax due on their income. In the event the decision goes in favour of HMRC the court has decided that the scheme was never legal and that the tax was always due. A good way to look on it might be that tax is due on all income but some dodgy tax expert has worked out a way to move money around that makes it difficult for HMRC to prove it is taxable.

 

If someone with plenty of cash decides they would rather risk being caught out in a number of years time with a hefty tax bill (often after they've spent all the money they've avoided paying tax on) instead of paying tax as it falls due, they've only themselves to blame. Ever wondered why they don't contact HMRC before engaging in a tax avoidance scheme to see if it's in order?

 

In the end they've taken bad advice, and should go after the tax advisor who gave them it, but he'll already have his money tucked away in some safe tax haven!

 

If you ever feel sympathy for these wealthy tax dodgers, just remember, if they paid all the tax they were due, you would be paying less tax, yourself, so, basically, they are stealing it from you!

[Jambo-Jimbo]

No one seems to ever have pursued the allegations that Murray's contact at the Bank of Scotland was used to his advantage and to the disadvantage of competing clubs who were also bankrolled by the BoS.

 

That, if true, was an absolute scandal.

 

 

 

Do you mean the allegations that when a club received a derisively offer from der hun for a player and told them to bolt, the phone rang shortly afterwards and it was their friendly bank manager asking when they were going to start clearing their overdraft off, is that the kind of allegations you mean?

 

Mr. Murray, that fine upstanding gentleman wouldn't stoop to them lows, would he?

 

One word, Airdrie, I rest my case.

[niblick1874]

collusion

Righto

Sorry, I should have put a smiley thing in there  . The point you make in your post is, as you say, the crux of the matter. For me, it's proof of collusion between the SFA and Rangers to cheat.

[Footballfirst]

It's the advantageous way, in favour of the wealthy tax dodgers, that the law works that creates this eventual problem for them. As things stand, a newly invented tax scheme's legality isn't tested until it's first discovered (by HMRC), investigated by them, then litigated against.

 

If they are wise, the dodger will use that money to fund some other, legitimate, money making scheme rather than spend it on Ferraris or jags, aware that, one day, the taxman might come calling. As we've seen with the Rangers'  EBT case, that can take years, in the meantime the wealthy tax dodgers continue to avoid paying the full amount of tax due on their income. In the event the decision goes in favour of HMRC the court has decided that the scheme was never legal and that the tax was always due. A good way to look on it might be that tax is due on all income but some dodgy tax expert has worked out a way to move money around that makes it difficult for HMRC to prove it is taxable.

 

If someone with plenty of cash decides they would rather risk being caught out in a number of years time with a hefty tax bill (often after they've spent all the money they've avoided paying tax on) instead of paying tax as it falls due, they've only themselves to blame. Ever wondered why they don't contact HMRC before engaging in a tax avoidance scheme to see if it's in order?

 

In the end they've taken bad advice, and should go after the tax advisor who gave them it, but he'll already have his money tucked away in some safe tax haven!

 

If you ever feel sympathy for these wealthy tax dodgers, just remember, if they paid all the tax they were due, you would be paying less tax, yourself, so, basically, they are stealing it from you!

 

I have a simple solution. All all employer funded savings / shares / loan / trust / pensions / investment schemes etc. will be considered as taxable benefits, unless they are pre-approved by HMRC. 

 

i.e. if you don't ask HMRC, then you will be left in no doubt whether or not the scheme is taxable.

 

Similarly any scheme where individuals seek to claim tax reliefs should again be cleared by HMRC.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Footballfirst

[davieholt]

I have a simple solution. All all employer funded savings / shares / loan / trust / pensions / investment schemes etc. will be considered as taxable benefits, unless they are pre-approved by HMRC. 

 

i.e. if you don't ask HMRC, then you will be left in no doubt whether or not the scheme is taxable.

 

Similarly any scheme where individuals seek to claim tax reliefs should again be cleared by HMRC.

 

Simple but effective 

[davieholt]

collusion

Sorry, I should have put a smiley thing in there  . The point you make in your post is, as you say, the crux of the matter. For me, it's proof of collusion between the SFA and Rangers to cheat.

 

No worries  . But I see the SFA are evening things up by upholding Scott Brown's appeal!

[niblick1874]

David Murray had total control over every news story before it was published he got to see what was being printed (allegedly), the hierarchy at the SFA were all ex-Rangers men.

 

Your the conspiracy theorist, you work out what was going on, but a wee heads up, you won't find any of this stuff on infowars or Fox 'Fake' News.

You lot can't help yourselves. You are willing to look as if you got the wrong end of the stick just to have a dig.

[niblick1874]

No worries  . But I see the SFA are evening things up by upholding Scott Brown's appeal!

It all evens itself out in the long run. For some more than others it seems.