The Sevco saga continues ...

[Jambo-Fox]

9 minutes ago, berrasbraw said:

They can’t have many shares left to punt surely?

They are only limited by the number of ‘blue’ 20 pences on offer ... as long as the coins roll in the shares will be offered!

Edited November 27, 2019 by Jambo-Fox

[JamboAndrew]

3 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Google Amazon Starbucks = tax avoidance which is legal

 

Rangers = tax evasion which is illegal 

That's why they died, and their titles with them.

 

And why Sevco is the newest club in Scotland.

 

Modelling yourself on a dead club and stealing that clubs cheated titles is pretty sick. Especially as said Rangers (RIH) - rest in hell, cheated and outspent everyone with money they didn't have for years.

 

The sooner the arsecheeks of Glasgow disappear the better Scotland and Scottish football will be without those shitestains.

[kirkierobroy]

Glibby Shameless also saying 'RANGERS' WUMMEN'S TEAM SHOULD BE RA BEST IN SCOTLAND!'

 

In other words, the next OF Mission is to make Scottish women's football as dull, predictable and skewed as the men's game.

[RobboM]

Ian Durrant (never the brightest) in a Herald article on Dave King ****ing off before the shit hits the pan announcing his retirement
 

“Then we had that spell where we had people who wanted what was good for them. The club nearly died. It nearly went down. The Three Bears, as they were called, came in and steadied the ship.”

Anyone want to break it to him? 😂

[Diadora Van Basten]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Ian Durrant (never the brightest) in a Herald article on Dave King ****ing off before the shit hits the pan announcing his retirement
 

“Then we had that spell where we had people who wanted what was good for them. The club nearly died. It nearly went down. The Three Bears, as they were called, came in and steadied the ship.”

Anyone want to break it to him? 😂

Is that the current party line  

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Ian Durrant (never the brightest) in a Herald article on Dave King ****ing off before the shit hits the pan announcing his retirement
 

“Then we had that spell where we had people who wanted what was good for them. The club nearly died. It nearly went down. The Three Bears, as they were called, came in and steadied the ship.”

Anyone want to break it to him? 😂

King successfully voted to kill them off.

 

[Dalstonjambo]

15 hours ago, hereford_hearts said:

I'm sure that King is chairman of the holding company, not the club. With them being amalgamated, I'm sure he cannot continue as chairman, as he has a snowballs chance in hell of passing the fit and proper person test, hence his resignation.

That's quite an interesting viewpoint actually. 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

17 hours ago, hereford_hearts said:

I'm sure that King is chairman of the holding company, not the club. With them being amalgamated, I'm sure he cannot continue as chairman, as he has a snowballs chance in hell of passing the fit and proper person test, hence his resignation.

King cant pass the "fit and proper"?

In Scotland?

While associated with Newco?

He'll chair the ******* interview.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

You can ignore all the fluff about the timing and focus on the end of the road being reached for King's wallet and those whose wallets he was able to dip into these last few years. Will be an interesting next 6 months for Sevco.

 

PS The best one was about him being unable to convert more of his debt to equity because of exchange controls (Exchange controls affect money alone not what it's used for).

[Doc Rob]

23 hours ago, Icon of Symmetry said:

If Morelos received a serious injury, they’d be ****ed.

 

I would never wish a serious injury on any footballer, but I can't believe the number of long-term injuries we have had to key players, and Morelos has never had so much as a sprained ankle.

[annushorribilis III]

19 hours ago, hereford_hearts said:

I'm sure that King is chairman of the holding company, not the club. With them being amalgamated, I'm sure he cannot continue as chairman, as he has a snowballs chance in hell of passing the fit and proper person test, hence his resignation.

I wonder if he's quitting because of the "cold shoulder" oft spoken of over on johnjames. Whatever , there's always a reason behind whatever King does and it's usually for his benefit. 

 

There's still the matter of the SD compo to be paid and this is really going to cost them. 

[Angry Haggis]

Least his grand kids will FINALLY get their inheritance....

 

[RobboM]

3 hours ago, annushorribilis III said:

I wonder if he's quitting because of the "cold shoulder" oft spoken of over on johnjames. Whatever , there's always a reason behind whatever King does and it's usually for his benefit. 

 

There's still the matter of the SD compo to be paid and this is really going to cost them. 

Please, please, please, let the SD compensation be massive. I mean MASSIVE. So massive that even someone like Phil 3 names says "Ooooft. Too harsh!"

[Lovecraft]

35 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Please, please, please, let the SD compensation be massive. I mean MASSIVE. So massive that even someone like Phil 3 names says "Ooooft. Too harsh!"

Pretty sure I read somewhere their legal fees were about £3M last year alone, nevermind the compensation.  Also, won't they need to pay for SD's fees too?

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Lovecraft
Shite spelling

[Footballfirst]

4 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

Pretty sure I read someone their legal fees were about £3M last year alone, nevermind the compensation.  Also, won't they need to pay for SD's fees too?

Some of those legal costs would have been SDI's, probably with more to come in the current financial year.

 

From a judgement on 19 July

Costs
14. Rangers shall pay SDIR’s costs of and occasioned by the Speedy Trial, to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.
15. Rangers shall make a payment on account to SDIR in respect of those costs of £444,846.60 by 4.00 pm on 16 August 2019.

[Lovecraft]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Some of those legal costs would have been SDI's, probably with more to come in the current financial year.

 

From a judgement on 19 July

Costs
14. Rangers shall pay SDIR’s costs of and occasioned by the Speedy Trial, to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.
15. Rangers shall make a payment on account to SDIR in respect of those costs of £444,846.60 by 4.00 pm on 16 August 2019.

  Cheers.

 

Thought they were getting thumped.

 

 

[Biguche]

On 26/11/2019 at 21:13, Diadora Van Basten said:

Google Amazon Starbucks = tax avoidance which is legal

 

Rangers = tax evasion which is illegal 

 

Unadulterated pish

[annushorribilis III]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Please, please, please, let the SD compensation be massive. I mean MASSIVE. So massive that even someone like Phil 3 names says "Ooooft. Too harsh!"

Let us pray.

[Malinga the Swinga]

30 minutes ago, Biguche said:

 

Unadulterated pish

Unfortunately, while unpleasant and morally reprehensible, it is legally correct.

 

If you are unhappy with this, suggest you start a campaign to have law changed. Good luck with that.

[Groatallar]

On 25/11/2019 at 23:43, Footballfirst said:

HMRC voted against Hearts CVA too.

They weren't our biggest creditor though

 

[Diadora Van Basten]

1 hour ago, Biguche said:

 

Unadulterated pish

How?

[Japan Jambo]

17 hours ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

You can ignore all the fluff about the timing and focus on the end of the road being reached for King's wallet and those whose wallets he was able to dip into these last few years. Will be an interesting next 6 months for Sevco.

 

PS The best one was about him being unable to convert more of his debt to equity because of exchange controls (Exchange controls affect money alone not what it's used for).

 

Outbound payments are subject to review by the South African Reserve Bank, what the money is used for very much forms part of their criteria for assessing whether the money will be transferred or not. This will definitely be at least an inconvenience to him, I suspect the bigger issue though is that he probably can't justifying spaffing much more cash up the wall... (and may or may not have it spare)

[Biguche]

10 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

How?

Because none of it was tax evasion

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Biguche said:

Because none of it was tax evasion

 

Correct, it was attempted tax evasion.

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by graygo

[Unknown user]

12 minutes ago, Biguche said:

Because none of it was tax evasion

 

Well, it was. You can tell because they were legally bound to pay it and didn't, creating an illegal scheme to do it.

 

AFAIK the actual crime of tax evasion can only be applied to individuals, but it's still exactly what happened here. If rangers had been a person (a very ugly, smelly, and unpleasant person right enough) he'd have been facing jail.

 

For me the key was always the shredding of the documents as the police raided - that tells you everything you need to know about what they were up to.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Smithee

[Footballfirst]

14 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Well, it was. You can tell because they were legally bound to pay it and didn't, creating an illegal scheme to do it.

 

AFAIK the actual crime of tax evasion can only be applied to individuals, but it's still exactly what happened here. If rangers had been a person (a very ugly, smelly, and unpleasant person right enough) he'd have been facing jail.

 

For me the key was always the shredding of the documents as the police raided - that tells you everything you need to know about what they were up to.

I don't think tax evasion was ever mentioned in any of the tribunals. Tax evasion normally occurs when you deliberately withhold or hide earnings or other income for which you know is liable to tax.  Rangers thought they were engaged in a lawful tax avoidance scheme which turned out not to be the case.

 

The trust arrangements that Rangers entered into was a tax avoidance scheme that didn't work, as the amounts put into the trust were derived from the individuals' employment and therefore should have been subject to PAYE and NICs. Rangers operation of the scheme was thus unlawful. 

 

It was their failure to cooperate with HMRC's investigations and not disclose the existence of side letters that proved to be their undoing in terms of claims going back beyond the normal six year limit, plus the application of interest and penalties in addition to the assessed tax liability. 

[Ex member of the SaS]

10 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't think tax evasion was ever mentioned in any of the tribunals. Tax evasion normally occurs when you deliberately withhold or hide earnings or other income for which you know is liable to tax.  Rangers thought they were engaged in a lawful tax avoidance scheme which turned out not to be the case.

 

The trust arrangements that Rangers entered into was a tax avoidance scheme that didn't work, as the amounts put into the trust were derived from the individuals' employment and therefore should have been subject to PAYE and NICs. Rangers operation of the scheme was thus unlawful. 

 

It was their failure to cooperate with HMRC's investigations and not disclose the existence of side letters that proved to be their undoing in terms of claims going back beyond the normal six year limit, plus the application of interest and penalties in addition to the assessed tax liability. 

How did you get so smart?

 

 

 

 I wish I was as smart too.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Ex member of the SaS

[graygo]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't think tax evasion was ever mentioned in any of the tribunals. Tax evasion normally occurs when you deliberately withhold or hide earnings or other income for which you know is liable to tax.  Rangers thought they were engaged in a lawful tax avoidance scheme which turned out not to be the case.

 

The trust arrangements that Rangers entered into was a tax avoidance scheme that didn't work, as the amounts put into the trust were derived from the individuals' employment and therefore should have been subject to PAYE and NICs. Rangers operation of the scheme was thus unlawful. 

 

It was their failure to cooperate with HMRC's investigations and not disclose the existence of side letters that proved to be their undoing in terms of claims going back beyond the normal six year limit, plus the application of interest and penalties in addition to the assessed tax liability. 

Tax avoidance is a legal method of avoiding paying tax.

Tax evasion is an illegal method of avoiding paying tax.

 

I know which one I think covers it. Suppose it depends on whether you think unlawful and illegal amount to the same thing.

[Unknown user]

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't think tax evasion was ever mentioned in any of the tribunals. Tax evasion normally occurs when you deliberately withhold or hide earnings or other income for which you know is liable to tax.  Rangers thought they were engaged in a lawful tax avoidance scheme which turned out not to be the case.

 

The trust arrangements that Rangers entered into was a tax avoidance scheme that didn't work, as the amounts put into the trust were derived from the individuals' employment and therefore should have been subject to PAYE and NICs. Rangers operation of the scheme was thus unlawful. 

 

It was their failure to cooperate with HMRC's investigations and not disclose the existence of side letters that proved to be their undoing in terms of claims going back beyond the normal six year limit, plus the application of interest and penalties in addition to the assessed tax liability. 

 

Well that's me telt!

 

The only thing though, if rangers thought they were involved in a lawful scheme why did they shred documents with the police at the door?

[JamboAl]

13 hours ago, Biguche said:

 

Unadulterated pish

I'm afraid it's not unadulterated pish.  It is fact.

That said, however, it may be that these companies are using practices that have have not yet come to light as evasive.

If you have any knowledge of this, I'm sure HMRC would welcome some contact from you.  Otherwise just accept they are legal avoidance.

[gjcc]

21 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Well that's me telt!

 

The only thing though, if rangers thought they were involved in a lawful scheme why did they shred documents with the police at the door?

Pioneers of GDPR?

[JamboAl]

46 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't think tax evasion was ever mentioned in any of the tribunals. Tax evasion normally occurs when you deliberately withhold or hide earnings or other income for which you know is liable to tax.  Rangers thought they were engaged in a lawful tax avoidance scheme which turned out not to be the case.

 

The trust arrangements that Rangers entered into was a tax avoidance scheme that didn't work, as the amounts put into the trust were derived from the individuals' employment and therefore should have been subject to PAYE and NICs. Rangers operation of the scheme was thus unlawful. 

 

It was their failure to cooperate with HMRC's investigations and not disclose the existence of side letters that proved to be their undoing in terms of claims going back beyond the normal six year limit, plus the application of interest and penalties in addition to the assessed tax liability. 

Any Accountant worth his salt would know that monies that come to you by way of your employment are taxable and if Rangers truly thought they were engaged in tax avoidance I suggest they were badly advised - and the Tribunals who agreed were no better.

[Footballfirst]

25 minutes ago, graygo said:

Tax avoidance is a legal method of avoiding paying tax.

Tax evasion is an illegal method of avoiding paying tax.

 

I know which one I think covers it. Suppose it depends on whether you think unlawful and illegal amount to the same thing.

Tax avoidance is not necessarily legal. It depends on the means by which it is carried out. I prefer the term "Tax Management" for those "legal" schemes to reduce your tax liability, e.g. ISAs, approved company share schemes. 

 

Tax avoidance schemes tend to seek to exploit loopholes or other untested elements of tax law.

 

Unlawful and illegal are frequently used to mean the same thing, but my understanding is that illegal refers to doing something that is explicitly forbidden in law, while unlawful is doing something contrary to what is allowed in law. e.g. Rangers deliberately withhold PAYE and NICs = illegal. Rangers act in a way that is not permitted for the lawful operation of EBTs = unlawful.  

[Footballfirst]

46 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Well that's me telt!

 

The only thing though, if rangers thought they were involved in a lawful scheme why did they shred documents with the police at the door?

Rangers was advised by Paul Baxendale Walker that EBTs were an effective way of avoiding tax, if operated in a specific way, i.e. payments into the trust had to be non contractual and discretionary.

 

However, footballers, while seeking to maximise their earnings by minimising their tax liability, wanted the certainty of guaranteed payments.

 

Problem!

 

Rangers solution was to provide side letters that said that the payments into the trust were discretionary, but spelled out how much and when money would paid into the trusts, so there was an element of plausible deniability, although they were in actuality contractual payments.

 

HMRC had concerns about the PBW promoted schemes, so started checking out all his clients. Investigations into Rangers started in January 2004. Rangers lack of cooperation with HMRC meant that it took until 2007 before the first side letters were uncovered (by way of a police investigation into a different matter). Rangers lack of candour was exposed and HMRC started issuing their assessments. Appeals followed, ending up in the Supreme Court in 2017, some 13 years after HMRC started asking questions.

[annushorribilis III]

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

Any Accountant worth his salt would know that monies that come to you by way of your employment are taxable and if Rangers truly thought they were engaged in tax avoidance I suggest they were badly advised - and the Tribunals who agreed were no better.

Rangers scheme was legitimate - it as the way it was administered that wasn't.  The payments under EBT were supposedly discretionary loans : the problem was no player was going to sign upon that basis (hence the side  letters effectively guaranteeing the payment annually). As was shown in court, no request was ever refused and no one ever repaid a penny.  Rangers were warned about this by the trustees of the scheme at the time - IIRC Rangers response to the warning was to remove them. 

[JamboAl]

36 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

Rangers scheme was legitimate - it as the way it was administered that wasn't.  The payments under EBT were supposedly discretionary loans : the problem was no player was going to sign upon that basis (hence the side  letters effectively guaranteeing the payment annually). As was shown in court, no request was ever refused and no one ever repaid a penny.  Rangers were warned about this by the trustees of the scheme at the time - IIRC Rangers response to the warning was to remove them. 

I didn't suggest otherwise.

It was the tax consequences and their treatment that was wrong and any Accountant worth his salt would/should have known that.  (I would have thought they sought Accountancy advice before proceeding).

[kirkierobroy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50595774

 

Headline says it all. Team who get all the breaks and all the favours, especially from their domestic FA, still see themselves as victims.

[Ex member of the SaS]

1 hour ago, kirkierobroy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50595774

 

Headline says it all. Team who get all the breaks and all the favours, especially from their domestic FA, still see themselves as victims.

Personally thought Moreles backed into him whilst bending over, making it impossible not to fall over him.

[moonraker]

On 28/11/2019 at 11:44, Footballfirst said:

Tax avoidance is not necessarily legal. It depends on the means by which it is carried out. I prefer the term "Tax Management" for those "legal" schemes to reduce your tax liability, e.g. ISAs, approved company share schemes. 

 

Tax avoidance schemes tend to seek to exploit loopholes or other untested elements of tax law.

 

Unlawful and illegal are frequently used to mean the same thing, but my understanding is that illegal refers to doing something that is explicitly forbidden in law, while unlawful is doing something contrary to what is allowed in law. e.g. Rangers deliberately withhold PAYE and NICs = illegal. Rangers act in a way that is not permitted for the lawful operation of EBTs = unlawful.  

I thought "Unlawful " was against the law and "Ilegal" Was a sick bird of prey

 

😎

[Dunks]

2 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Personally thought Moreles backed into him whilst bending over, making it impossible not to fall over him.

 

Agreed

[JamboAl]

On 28/11/2019 at 11:44, Footballfirst said:

Tax avoidance is not necessarily legal. It depends on the means by which it is carried out. I prefer the term "Tax Management" for those "legal" schemes to reduce your tax liability, e.g. ISAs, approved company share schemes. 

 

Tax avoidance schemes tend to seek to exploit loopholes or other untested elements of tax law.

 

Unlawful and illegal are frequently used to mean the same thing, but my understanding is that illegal refers to doing something that is explicitly forbidden in law, while unlawful is doing something contrary to what is allowed in law. e.g. Rangers deliberately withhold PAYE and NICs = illegal. Rangers act in a way that is not permitted for the lawful operation of EBTs = unlawful.  

I think you're splitting hairs at best here, FF.

 

Tax avoidance is where you act within the law to minimise your tax bill.

Tax evasion is where you act otherwise than within the law to minimise your bill.

 

IMO there was no legal loophole to exploit here as there is much tax case law to emphasise that monies coming to you by way of employment constitutes remuneration and is taxable eg Cooper v Blakiston.  You can call an apple an orange but it's still an apple.

[Boof]

2 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Personally thought Moreles backed into him whilst bending over, making it impossible not to fall over him.

 

Stonewaller with a SFA referee...

[Dunks]

Assume they'll get fined for the use of pyros in their end last night and a further closure for the sectarian chanting.

 

[Footballfirst]

21 hours ago, Dunks said:

Assume they'll get fined for the use of pyros in their end last night and a further closure for the sectarian chanting.

 

The Scotsman is suggesting that Rangers may again be sanctioned by UEFA for their fans’ song book and banners in Rotterdam, leading to a game being played behind closed doors.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/rangers-may-have-to-play-final-europa-league-game-behind-closed-doors-at-ibrox-after-reports-of-sectarian-singing-at-feyenoord-clash-1-5054620

[Mysterion]

17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The Scotsman is suggesting that Rangers may again be sanctioned by UEFA for their fans’ song book and banners in Rotterdam, leading to a game being played behind closed doors.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/rangers-may-have-to-play-final-europa-league-game-behind-closed-doors-at-ibrox-after-reports-of-sectarian-singing-at-feyenoord-clash-1-5054620

 

Here's hoping. 

Closed door game will hit them hard right before Christmas. 

[Gizmo]

4 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

Here's hoping. 

Closed door game will hit them hard right before Christmas. 

[Footballfirst]

Copied from another forum.

 

If TRFC is required to play their last group game behind closed doors, the majority of the gate money has already been paid via their £111/£123 three-game ticket package. Apparently, according to the MSM, their packages were providing £5.5m income over the three matches or £1.83m per match. There will still be many fixed costs associated with putting on the match, even in an empty stadium.

 

Would they simply refund or ask the fans to 'contribute' the price of the last match? Perhaps one for their Level Sinko spinner to consider.

[brunoatemyhamster]

Continues to amaze me this only happens on European nights.

Strange.

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The Scotsman is suggesting that Rangers may again be sanctioned by UEFA for their fans’ song book and banners in Rotterdam, leading to a game being played behind closed doors.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/rangers-may-have-to-play-final-europa-league-game-behind-closed-doors-at-ibrox-after-reports-of-sectarian-singing-at-feyenoord-clash-1-5054620

“Reports” of sectarian singing. 

Who decides. I know what I believe.

Cowardly reporting as per.

[Castle rock]

6 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

“Reports” of sectarian singing. 

Who decides. I know what I believe.

Cowardly reporting as per.

Reports what a lot of shite I take it none of the football authorities have YouTube or read the papers all very easy to find but the sfa must not have tinternet yet its an absolute joke and the fines uefa hand out are a waste of time immediately give out stadium bans then start docking points if that doesn’t stop it European bans feck these 14k fines