.. and why sites like SFM matter.
When SFM blasted off in 2012, we had a fair idea that Scottish Football had not only veered violently off the rails,but that it had done so deliberately.
Our intention was to try to help – in some small way – to steer it towards a straighter track, and to see it restored as a sporting institution and spectacle worthy of sporting principles. To see integrity restored to our national sport, to see honesty, fairness and adherence to both the laws of the game and land.
Of course we didn’t know what route our own journey would take, even although we were clear about the destination. What we did know about the journey was that no matter the route, the first leg started outside our own front door.
Who knew we would be taken on a magical mystery tour, blindfolded, spun around a few times, but still find ourselves at that front door. Via the road less traveled, the high road, low road and an endless series of shortcuts and wrong turns we hadn’t moved an inch.
On every stage of the “journey” the SFA, the SPL, and their quasi-legal tribunals & inquiries ducked and dived, twisted and bent the truth, and aided and abetted the greatest scam in the history of UK sport.
Newly coined idioms emerged; “Imperfect registrations”, “boiler-room subsidiary”, “emerged from liquidation”, “ethereal entity”, – and the real doozy; “other clubs could also have broken the tax laws had they wished” – all in an effort to;
1. pretend that what happened had not happened, that cheating was fair, that the rights of one football club were not enshrined in law but decreed by the heavens;
2. hope against hope that the rest of us had gone stark raving bonkers and would accept the “Santa is alive” fallacy as truth.
The facts were;
- That Rangers, having been subjected to the ignominy of administration, had now entered liquidation, leaving behind a mountain of debts, the vast majority of which were underwritten by us, by the taxpaying public.
- That almost £100m of funds was denied to the exchequer as the first ever nationalised football club, bought and paid for by the people of the UK, slid into oblivion, a trail of devastation in its wake.
- That in the course of that calamitous conduct of business, the SFA and the SPL were given false and incomplete information about the nature of players’ contracts. This in order to cover up a tax scheme that was (according to the man who devised it) operated incorrectly and thus unawfully.
Every football club in Scotland and their fans were cheated by a club which quite simply refused to play by the rules – even as the noose around its neck was being pulled ever tighter due to HMRC and Lloyd’s Banking Group taking steps to erect buffers ahead of the onrushing gravy train.
The result was that 140 years of history came to an end; an insatiable hunger for success ironically bringing about the ultimate and irreversible failure of a Scottish institution.
Not for them though, the recognition that they had transgressed. “It wasn’t Rangers – it was Craig White” was the cry.
I’m sure Hearts supporters in 1965 might have said the same about Willie Wallace after he missed a sitter in the final league match against Kilmarnock at Tynecastle. Had he scored, Hearts would have won the league, so Hearts should, by the RFC logic, claim that title anyway. Likewise Celtic fans could have pointed a finger at Georgios Samaras when his penalty miss at Ibrox lost them the league.
More facts: every football club in the world is the sum of its parts, onfield and off. We take the good that people do for our clubs and celebrate them. We have no right to cherry pick and ignore the consequences when people screw up.
Footballers – and administrators – are often gifted individuals given to moments of blinding inspiration which benefits their clubs. They are also often prone to reckless behaviours, the consequences of which we all have to bear. Murray’s knack of talking money out of trees and his reckless and irresponsible practices gave Rangers huge success, but that behaviour also – perhaps inevitably – led to the appointment with the buffers mentioned above.
The good and the bad. Both sides of the same coin, inseparable, inevitable, and there is no choice but to accept the whole package, not just the good bits.
In the circumstances, the hostility towards the old club was understandable. It was always a given that Celtic fans were unlikely to cut them slack as they headed towards an ignominious end.
However, had there been contrition, an acknowledgement of wrongs and some humility in response to talk of consequences, fans of other clubs outside of the Old Firm bubble may have extended some sympathy. But there was none of this. Instead, denial, arrogance, blaming others (“kicking us when we are down”, “who are these people?”) and a pugilistic reaction to the very idea of punishment. The outcome was an absence of sympathy for the plight of RFC.
Let’s revisit this; on an industrial scale, Rangers misrepresented (accidentally if you believe that the board of a PLC was comprised exclusively of halfwits and individuals unable to bite their own fingers) crucial information regarding compliance with registration rules, They subsequently withheld evidence from multiple enquiries into their conduct over these registration rules.
As far back as 1996, Rangers PAYE affairs were being investigated by HMRC and incurring penalties (not a very well publicised event).
Then, for more than a decade, principally through the 2000s they failed to comply with taxation statutes and with crucially important (not merely bureaucratic) SFA rules designed to preserve the intergity of football as a sport. They cheated the revenue out of millions and the fans of every club in Scotland out of their aspirations for their own clubs.
Rangers however were still box-office, and there were 50,000 fans providing a market for the product the now extinct club had provided through the decades. Surely someone would step in and take up the Rangers cause? Surely those people would eschew the catastrophic errors of judgement that had resulted in the economic and existential demise of the original club? Surely they would also acknowledge those mistakes in an effort to convince the clubs and fans they had wronged that this was an organisation that recognised the interdependence of sporting activity?
Surely.
But no. Sadly, no.
Even then though, that matters little.
Why? Because the sins of the old Rangers cannot be visited on the new. The behavior of the new club is a matter for a different argument, but it isn’t relevant in a legal or regulatory sense to the old club. Legally or morally there is nothing you can do to them to ensure that a repeat of the same spivish behaviour does not occur.
So why the fuss? Why the six years of relentless campaigning by SFM and dozens of other football sites?
Because it does matter that the authorities themselves – including all the other clubs – and the MSM have gone out of their way to cover it all up.
No-one at the SFA will talk to fans who have provided them with evidence of wrongdoing in the matter of the 2011 Euro licence. No one will address the witholding of evidence from the LNS enquiry, nor the false premise upon which it arrived at some of its conclusions, nor the mysteriously shifting goalposts of the period investigated by the LNS enquiry, nor the acid-flashback consciousness of the newly arrived at – and totally irregular and unlawful – “imperfect registration” status.
What still requires to be done is to root out those who have enabled the big lie. We need to hold accountable those who have sought to bury evidence, to dispense with logic and to treat fans with contempt and ridicule when legitimate concerns are raised.
We need to replace those people with people of integrity, folk who love the game as much as we do, people who will not yield to intimidation or the dog-whistle.
There are foot thick rule-books in place in football, and the authorities have plummeted into the Asimovian depths of a regulatory Fantastic Voyage to circumvent those. The SFA Chief Executive even told our own John Clark that he would “do nothing” had he been presented with evidence of wrong doing (and he had been presented with such evidence).
Yet one simple rule would have saw the whole sorry escapade brought to a halt – the universal rule that requires people to show due respect and good faith to others.
As I said, we started this journey at our own front door. The authorities and their enablers in the media have been taking us on the Uber route for six years. But we still know the destination, and we will get there. The SFA, the SPFL and the MSM have been relentless in their dedication to half-truths and misdirection.
But the fans are even more relentless in their pursuit of truth and their determination to see our game returned to its status a a sport. That is why outlets like SFM are important. Not because we are any better than others, but because we give a voice to the people in the game who matter most – to the paying public of Scotland who turn up in numbers relatively greater than any other country in Europe. They need that voice. We are not going anywhere.
If there is NI die as well the amount due will be more than the net EBT paid. That is before any interest. If the interest is compound (and it should be ) at 8% over 7 years that is more than 100% of the sum due. Even with 8% simple interest over 7 years that amounts to 56% of the sum due. So if one were not bankrupt and had an EBT netting 2.5m the total payable might be 2.5million plus another 2.5million.
I understand these kinds of calculations but shall never understand money.
bfbpuzzled
3rd September 2018 at 14:00
======================================
On the interest, I believe it is compound. Whether or not it is discretionary has been ruled on at tribunal. The First Tier said it was, HMRC won the appeal that it wasn't, because of the wording of the legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/9/section/86/enacted
86 Interest on overdue tax
(1) Any tax charged by any assessment to which this subsection applies shall carry interest at the prescribed rate from the date when the tax becomes due and payable until payment. This subsection applies to—
(a)any assessment to income tax made under Schedule A or Schedule D,
(b)any assessment to surtax,
(c)any assessment to capital gains tax,
(d)any assessment to corporation tax.
(2) Where any tax is paid not later than two months from the date on which it becomes due and payable, the interest thereon under this section shall be remitted. As respects tax becoming due and payable before 1st July 1968 this subsection has effect with the substitution of
“three months”for " two months ".
(3) Interest shall not be payable under this section on the tax charged by any assessment unless—
(a)the total tax charged by that assessment exceeds £1,000, and
(b) the total amount of the interest exceeds £5,
so, however, that in the case of tax becoming due and payable before 19th April 1967, paragraph (b) above has effect with the substitution of
“£1”for " £5 ".
(4)Interest shall not be deemed to have begun to run under this section from any date before 1st January 1948.
=======================================
Note, "shall be" not "may be".
As I understand it there isn't even a right to appeal interest (unlike penalty levels). If the tax is due then the interest is also due.
Because of the way it works, gross rather than net, the high rate of tax and the compound interest there is every possibility the amount payable will be closer to the original amount they received rather than the 40% calculations some people are making.
Then there is the possibility of penalties if the player is not compliant and does not assist HMRC in calculating how much they are due to pay.
One wonders how many of the recipients who have towed the line "But SDM would have found the money anyway to make the higher contributions ergo the standard of player employed was unaffected" are still of similar opinion now that it transpires it may be them who are now the bankers of choice.
"I understand these kind of calculations but shall never understand money"
bfbpuzzled
Well over the last 100 years (exactly) the bankers have removed all the real money from the system. 100 years ago when you took money from your pocket it was 92.5% silver, 1 year later that coin looked identical to it's 1918 version but contained only 50% silver and by 1946 all silver content had been removed. It's important to note that 1919 and 1946 were the years after the end of both world wars. In 1971 Nixon "temporarily" removed the $ from the gold standard thus ending the dollar is as good as gold promise.
In 1975 Switzerland became the last country to remove silver from its coins.
We are now a debt based world where paper tokens are printed at will, QE1 , 2, 3, …….
Where negative interest rates exist and we pay the banks for them to lend our savings .
The next plan is a digital system where money will be just a digit on a computer and every transaction is recorded.
Oh that temporary measure to suspend the gold standard is still in place 47 years later and a full audit of US gold reserves has not been carried out since the 1950s.
To understand money you first have to understand how bankers steal it from you.
Rant over
Apologies for OT comment
Just want to check with the volume of posts aimed at tax avoidance and paying up what's due, are we all comfortable acknowledging that everyone involved in Scottish football who avoided tax through schemes should be chased and pilloried for their own individual parts in avoiding tax. Not just Rangers players.
Yeah?
Anyone want to have a go at criticizing them all in the interest of fairness?
Tax avoidance is an issue for politicians to close unfair but legal loopholes, tax evasion is an issue for hmrc , if you have evidence of individuals evading taxes then pass the evidence to the relevant authorities, whoever they are.
The loopholes have been closed on film schemes there's 30+ players and officials in Scottish Football past and present all caught up in it and owing tax man millions.
I'm only checking that each of these individuals are considered every bit as bad as the ones who participated in EBTs.
Think that's only fair yeah.
Advice or no advice.
Out of interest I assume to become a partner in the film making firm (I'm taking my limited knowledge of the deal from your earlier post) that there was some form of contract. Out of interest, for the 30+ players you mention, how many times did HMRC ask if there was a contract and how many times did they deny it?
In the interests of fairness, yeah?
Smugas. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. My question has nothing to do with what the employer done. I'm simply noticing the volume posts about paying your dues.
I don't think any of the players being spoke. About have been accused of denying anything to HMRC, so purely from a moral stand point on the issue of paying what's due, will everybody be treated equally?
Who is willing to call out all these players, coaches, managers and Directors for shafting the public purse like the Rangers employees?
TheLawMan2 3rd September 2018 at 15:26
I think all decent minded posters who are trying to keep within the law re their own tax affairs will be critical of any individual who has crossed the line re tax laws.
The difference of course, as you well know, is that the DOS and EBT schemes were organised and managed by 'the club' playing out of Ibrox and were not just some IFA type situation of knocking on individual's doors with a get rich quick scheme.
This was not something that was done to simply help line individuals pockets. It was done on an industrial scale to gain a sporting advantage and then hidden from both Hector and the footballing authorities.
I have a degree of sympathy for the Rangers players caught up in the debacle as they were actually being duped and sold a pup by their employer, but no more or less than anyone caught up in film industry or forestry land ownership types schemes because of their own greed and stupidity.
Any players who may end up having to face Hector and face financial ruin should be hounding 'the club' and individual members of the board and management team (and any agents and the likes who gave advice) for all they can if they hold letters of indemnity.
The trouble is of course that a good number will most likely be hung out to dry, while the real chancers will have most likely been able to make contingency plans.
Let's not lose track of the issue here, Lawman. Of course, all instances of comparatively well off people finding loopholes to avoid paying tax are frowned upon – we're generally a pretty moral crowd on here (yourself excepted imo when it comes to rangers*, but that's a whole other discussion!) and I'm sure if there was current sympathetic press coverage for those players who opted to use the film company loophole, that would be condemned. There isn't at the moment.
The real issue we need to focus on (and you're trying to deflect from it again) is that the EBT loophole was one 'recommended' to the players – if not foisted on them – by your club at the time. Without Rangers* introducing it so they could benefit from cheating, the players may well not have fallen foul of the taxman. Yes, we condemn the individuals as well, but don't deflect on who is really at fault here and – more importantly – why. Rangers decided to cheat, it's that simple.
paddy malarkey 3rd September 2018 at 13:36
=======================
Feel free to disagree Paddy, but 23 years of me attending the new Celtic Park, and being familiar with the area involved, qualifies me to say there has never been a reported near miss incident of this nature. Something clearly changed yesterday. There were only 800 Rangers fans in the ground, a number regularly coped with when Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs visit. The club statement today said there were new security and segregation arrangements in place. It's important that no backs are covered during any investigation which in my view should be independent to ensure lessons are learned.
http://www.celticfc.net/news/14891
TheLawMan2 3rd September 2018 at 15:37
I'm only checking that each of these individuals are considered every bit as bad as the ones who participated in EBTs.
Think that's only fair yeah.
==============================
You won't get any argument from me that those players, managers, other officials, celebrities etc., who have participated in all unlawful tax avoidance schemes deserve to be treated in the same manner.
However, you should at least acknowledge that the current discussion of the topic resulted from Graham Spiers fake news article in The Times where he wrongly described the Rangers players as having "unwittingly" participated in an EBT scheme that was "foisted" upon them.
I would suggest to Graham Spiers that I have a PAYE scheme foisted upon me, one that I'd prefer not to participate in, but I recognise that it is the interests of all the citizens of this country that I pay all that I am due.
uppthehoops@16.21
In the lead up to yesterday’s game the event commander stated that the policing plan for the game would be the same as it would have been with previous games with a big away crowd. Perhaps that was the problem. The big plan didn’t work for a smaller crowd.
Keeping the away fans in didn’t work either because the home fans stayed behind and the lap of honour wasn’t well received by the away support.
Hopefully there will be an investigation and open and honest report to follow.
Speaking for myself I am and always have been entirely unequivocal on the subject.
Everyone, no matter who they are, should pay the correct amount of tax at the correct time. They should not get involved in contrived schemes whose purpose is to avoid paying the tax which is rightly due. If they are caught they should pay the tax owed plus any interest and for preference a penalty as well.
I also think people should manage their tax appropriately and if someone can put money into an ISA and get a tax free income from it then there is no reason for them not to do it. It is using a Government approved scheme and in doing so minimising the tax due. It encourages saving, hence the tax break.
There is no "This group should pay the right tax, but this other group doesn't have to". I can't even understand where such a suggestion would come from.
Timtim
Your comparison between fiat money and money underpinned by metals is one I follow but do not believe. The only reason why anything is taken to be valuable is because folk believe it to be so. There is no inherent value in gold or any other thing.
TRFC are a prime example of the truth that value derives from the imagination.
Timtim 3rd September 2018 at 15:33
Tax avoidance is an issue for politicians to close unfair but legal loopholes, tax evasion is an issue for hmrc …
====================================
HMRC deal with avoidance as well as evasion.
The difference between avoidance and evasion is that avoidance is a civil matter and evasion is a criminal one.
Avoidance is not "legal loopholes" it is using a system for a purpose which was never intended. It is subject to a system of civil penalties if someone is caught.
Does an EBT have to be declared on a tax form as monies received even tho tax may not be due?
Homunculus,
”Avoidance is not "legal loopholes" it is using a system for a purpose which was never intended. It is subject to a system of civil penalties if someone is caught.”
That is not accurate. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. For example, an individual putting savings in an ISA account is using laws exactly as intended by Parliament to avoid paying tax on savings. There is nothing wrong with this.
Tax evasion, and schemes masquerading as avoidance while actually in practice being evasion, is not legal.
bfbpuzzled
3rd September 2018 at 18:17
===========================================
What about iridium, you can't surely say that has no inherent value.
I certainly didn't name any person or club I used they and as far as I am concerned everyone should pay what is due matters not to me who they are or what walk of life they hail from.
RyanGosling 3rd September 2018 at 19:17
Homunculus,
”Avoidance is not "legal loopholes" it is using a system for a purpose which was never intended. It is subject to a system of civil penalties if someone is caught.”
======================================
That is not accurate. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. For example, an individual putting savings in an ISA account is using laws exactly as intended by Parliament to avoid paying tax on savings. There is nothing wrong with this.
Tax evasion, and schemes masquerading as avoidance while actually in practice being evasion, is not legal.
===========================================
You are wrong, you are describing tax management, which things such as ISAs are.
Tax avoidance is using a system in a way never intended by Parliament. It is not a criminal offence however it is also not legal, if it was legal HMRC could not impose penalties.
Tax evasion is a criminal offence.
RyanGosling 3rd September 2018 at 19:17
That is not accurate. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. For example, an individual putting savings in an ISA account is using laws exactly as intended by Parliament to avoid paying tax on savings. There is nothing wrong with this.
==============================
Nonsense. Savings deposited in an ISA account will mostly be from income that has already been taxed via PAYE or Self Assesment.
The government has chosen not to tax income/interest generated from an ISA account and placed limits on the amount that can be deposited in each tax year. ISAs are therefore a tax efficient means of growing your savings, and not "tax avoidance" in any sense of the words.
I have a current ISA with Fidelity International, perhaps I should ask them for an indemnity just in case the government changes the tax status of the income and capital growth I receive.
The same applies for share saving schemes where employees invest in their own companies.
Only schemes that are not approved by HMRC should be deemed as tax avoidance.
I’ve read a number of things (and vaguely remember the distinction between evasion and avoidance being discussed at uni, but I may have been partially asleep) and was convinced my terminology was correct. After being reprimanded by Homunculus and Easyjambo I did further research. The government website on tax avoidance says this:
”Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.”
I was incorrect. I apologise. Should have done the research before posting.
Incidentally I did find a number of references to tax avoidance being legal using the ISA example from several broadsheet newspapers while doing said research. So it’s not only the Scottish media who are incapable of accurate reporting!
King can’t participate in the share issue . I don’t think others in the concert party can participate either .
What’s more interesting is whether the Takeover Panel attempt to block the issue from taking place prior to King’s ordered offer to shareholders. The TOP will be aware that King is making no genuine effort to comply or to enable funds to clear South African currency transfer regulations
King’s claims that it takes significant time to clear SA controls isn’t just disenegenius , it’s provably wrong
First Rand of SA made a £1.08B offer for UK plc Aldermore on October 13th. The deal was accepted and fully paid on November 6th
Steinhoff of SA bought Poundland for £600 M
Aspen Pharmacare of SA bought a division of UK’s Glaxo Smith Kline
Loads of other similar deals . Funds were provided from SA , in various sums , but far greater than King needs to provide . When an offer is made , there is no guarantee it will be accepted, but if it is , funds need to be available promptly .
King clearly wants the share issue to dilute those who he knows will accept a 20p from him as ordered by the TOP. Should RIFC be allowed to proceed with a share offer without King having made his offer , then the 50% requirement won’t be met and King will write to the TOP stating he has enough committed rejections that his offer would fail .
The TOP will be failing in their duty to protect minority shareholders if they don’t attempt to block/delay the new share issue. Whether the courts agree is unknown at this point .
On Individual liability for EBT Tax bills, disregard any noise about statute of limitations. HMRC don’t issue demands for payment or anything similar unless they know they can collect . Fantasy dinner parties not withstanding
billydug@19.05
I suppose it depends if the EBT monies were dealt with at source i.e. through PAYE. If on the other hand the people receiving monies via the trust were self employed then they would have to declare the non taxable income. Maybe.
I don’t recall this being discussed on here before but there’s a lot of stuff to remember. One for the accountants I think.
I was under the impression that the film schemes involved people investing money on which the tax had been paid , hoping to avoid paying tax on profits ? A bit different from avoiding social taxes in the first place , if so .
upthehoops 3rd September 2018 at 16:21
I bow to your superior knowledge , but on the occasion I mentioned , the police declined to get involved , passing the buck to the stewards . I gave my brother , who was a police inspector and is a CFC ST holder , pelters and got the "wee team fans at big games/stadia " response .
I don’t know enough about Rangers application for a fanzone to comment, other than to state the notion that Celtic got preferential treatment is nonsense
Celtic have had one fanzone event. For a Charity game .
Police objected , local community council objected. It took 4 months of amending plans and responding to concerns , to get permission.
Permission was granted 24 hours before the game , deliberately in my view to disrupt the chances of it being successful
The Police and Community Council made multiple visits to the fanzone on the day of the match
At the debrief the week after the game , Police and CC admitted their concerns turned out to be unwarranted as it was a trouble free event.
Celtic then asked if we could run a fanzone this season . Police and CC both refused and Celtic are going through the entire process again.
The representatives of both objecting parties are not Celtic fans . Pointless us politicising this , it’s counter productive and inflammatory to do that .
Rangers and Club 1872 have their facts wrong with regard to precedent and in my view are handling it badly. It seems that Rangers feel noise and aggravation are necessary to win an argument . I suppose that’s a legacy of gaining power by boycotts and threats
Evading Avoidance
RTC 31/03/2012
“We have seen a few old faces and themes emerge overnight in the light of the surprisingly excellent Channel 4 exposé on Rangers. Annoyingly, an old myth has been repeated by some posters: “tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal”. Another one is that Rangers have not been accused of tax evasion- ergo they have not done anything illegal. This is absolute rubbish on both counts.
This is the sort of ill informed mythology that gets repeated by the idiots who told us Craig Whyte was buying Rangers for £33m. It is a bit like the story about Eskimos having lots of words for snow: just because a piece of untrue nonsense is repeated often does not change its central essence. It is still untrue nonsense.
So by way of a bit of a filler post while we are waiting on events to further unfold, we shall do a bit of revision for those who might have missed this first time around. The laws covering tax evasion and tax avoidance are identical. The only real difference is that in cases of tax evasion, such overwhelming evidence will exist that HMRC believes it can prove that the people involved planned to commit fraud. The perpetrators must also have known that what they were doing was criminal when they did it. (Our lawyers friends will provide a more precise definition, but this will be good enough for most purposes). This is a pretty difficult standard to achieve. In fact, it is so difficult to prove, criminal prosecutions for tax evasion are normally reserved for accountants and lawyers- people whose knowledge of tax law is easier to demonstrate. This explains why several high profile tax fraud cases, such as the recent one involving the canine pet of a football manager, ended in acquittals despite evidence that looked pretty impressive to the general public. In Scotland, this high hurdle is elevated further by the requirement for corroboration.
Tax avoidance can be illegal. It is a term used to describe tax schemes that simply will not be pursued in a criminal court. Some avoidance schemes are illegal, while others have been deemed to be legal if implemented correctly. HMRC even have a tax avoidance scheme registration plan (DOTAS). Tax payers can use DOTAS registered avoidance schemes and be sure that they will not be accused of criminality. Those who are deemed to have breached tax law through an illegal avoidance scheme are pursued through a civil process i.e. a tax tribunal- rather than a criminal court. This is where Rangers are. They are not accused of any criminal action at this point (and it is unlikely that they will), but they have been accused by HMRC of pursuing illegal tax avoidance practices. This resulted in them being sent tax assessments for underpayment, interest, and penalties. Rangers have appealed this determination by HMRC and the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) will decide whether to uphold Rangers’ appeal or not. The First Tier Tribunal will effectively rule on whether Rangers’ tax practices were legal or illegal.
You might wonder why criminal charges would not be pressed if someone was found to have shredded key documents in a tax investigation. Surely this would be criminal? Well, mibbees aye, mibbees naw.
It could be deemed criminal if you could prove that the person who requested the shredding was knowingly destroying a document to subvert an investigation by a government body. Proving this degree of intent will often be impossible. So, tax collectors will settle for collecting taxes- through the civil courts. In the tax tribunal process, interest payments and penalties are used to ensure that tax avoiders (that is ones deemed to have broken the law) do not gain an advantage by paying a smaller amount later. In cases, where there is the possibility of criminal behaviour by ‘minor cogs’ in the machine rather than the ‘big gear’, there would also be a reluctance to prosecute.
Football manager Dog bank account.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16677743
Woo£ Woo£
A civil case is not legal/illegal.
A criminal case is.
There is no allegation, case to be answered, suggestion or otherwise that Rangers operation of EBTs were illegal.
There has been 4 rulings on it. Surely 1 of them would state "illegal" if it was the case. Can anyone help point to it.
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 02:41
…………'There has been 4 rulings on it. Surely 1 of them would state "illegal" if it was the case. Can anyone help point to it'…………
Not as clever as most of the posters on here but here goes. I would say that the fact that the HMRC Monster is coming over the hill to recover money deemed as owed to him would point to a certain amount of illegality.
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 02:41 1 14 Rate This A civil case is not legal/illegal. A criminal case is. There is no allegation, case to be answered, suggestion or otherwise that Rangers operation of EBTs were illegal. There has been 4 rulings on it. Surely 1 of them would state "illegal" if it was the case. Can anyone help point to it.
_____________
Is this something you picked up from some of your so very well placed acquaintances, or is it, again, just you posting wishful thinking in a manner that suggests you are so knowledgeable that no supporting evidence/link is required?
For the record, what you wrote, as so often, was debunked, over and over again, as long ago as when the RTC blog was in it's infancy. I had thought that even the most dim of thought had long given up on that one!
The Rangers' use of EBTs was ruled as 'unlawful' which, as was demonstrated more than adequately on a number of occasions to be the same as 'illegal', though it does sound nicer, suggesting, perhaps, a lack of criminality while also holding a dire lack of honesty.
A simple rule of thumb being, of course, you don't get fined by a court of law, or tribunal, if you have not been found to have acted outside of the law.
The recent talk again of EBTs
Leads me to my old default position when discussing the cheating years with any sevco 2012 fan .
There is one question I ask quite quickly to find out if I am about to waste time on the subject .
Q. Do you believe that that the EBTs paid to the players of Rangers fc were loans ,or payment for kicking a football about .
If the answer is the latter ,then I will happily discuss the subject further ,If however it is the former ,I just don,t waste my breath .
They know what it was ,we know what it was and more importantly the peepil involved in it KNEW what it was and no long winded tosh about proving it will ever change that
fan of football
4th September 2018 at 07:13
======================================
The Supreme Court agrees with you. If it is a payment for doing your job, which it clearly was, then it doesn't matter if the payment was by way of a loan, a payment to a third party, or any other method. The amount is taxable. It is as if you had received the money then did with it what you wanted.
Just on civil penalties for non payment of tax.
So what we have in avoidance, is that people are using legislation in a way never intended by Parliament, and if they are caught have to pay the tax, plus interest, plus a penalty between 20% and 100% of the tax, between 30% and 100% if they try to conceal it (unless HMRC had previously offered an "amnesty" for pragmatic reasons).
That's not just avoidance, that's any type of reckless or deliberate underpayment. People then tell me avoidance is perfectly legal.
So the Government can now fine you up to 100% for doing something perfectly legal. That's an interesting concept. Its totally wrong obviously but interesting that people might believe it.
I think i would stick with these guys if have a scheme in operation and the court tells you it is not permitted by law, then you have your definition of illegal.(illegal definition not permitted by law)
https://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2433364/rangers-ebt-tax-case-ruled-illegal-as-hmrc-declares-victory
This latest ruling by three judges at the Court of Session upholds HMRC’s position and renders the EBT arrangement illegal.
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1514/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others
Nevertheless, the law is clear: the payments made in respect of footballers were in our view derived from their employment and thus the payments were emoluments or earnings.”
<
p style=”margin-left:0cm; margin-right:0cm”>http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
You could use they guys Boab or you could also use a QC who specialises in Tax Law who wrote this.
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/
Who to believe eh ? A QC with years experience whom according to Allyjambo must be DIM for disagreeing with a blogger on the internet.
Guess we will need to wait and see when a "Criminal" case is brought to court over it.
TheLawMan2 3rd September 2018 at 16:03
"Smugas. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. My question has nothing to do with what the employer done. I'm simply noticing the volume posts about paying your dues.
I don't think any of the players being spoke. About have been accused of denying anything to HMRC, so purely from a moral stand point on the issue of paying what's due, will everybody be treated equally?
Who is willing to call out all these players, coaches, managers and Directors for shafting the public purse like the Rangers employees? "
=========================================================================
I think you miss an important point here in your argument, the Rangers players were been paid on the side and it was created to avoid tax. This made them complicit in a scheme were they knew that not their entire wage was been taxed and they were not properly registered into the bargain the scheme was discretely hidden from the SFA and tax man.
The other case the film case is not the same as the players involved in this had already paid tax on their earning from their main course of employment and what they did with their own money after that was up to them, they did not enter into a system setup to avoid tax they entered into a system they had been sold offered a tax free incentive. This was their money to risk, it was money they owned after tax to gamble with.The scheme was also known to the public in the know all thought it was legit but was merely bad advice, Murray on the other hand knew his involved discreet letters to be hidden from the SFA and peering eyes, he knew he was perverting the SFA rules and flaunting.
SDM and the players through side letters knew this was part of their wages been separated and they knew their worth that they would not have come for the wages on the payslip, they knew then that their worth was been utilised on the side, this known fact makes them complicit also in the registration process as the employer and agent both knew registration of the player was not in full whilst a known issue required for completeness was active.
I think you know the difference with others, you may invest your hard earned pay into a scheme upfront at your risk, if it fails you made an error if you enter into a scheme requiring underhand paper work to be hidden and a ote promising if you get caught it will be sorted, what part of this is not watertight dont you understand or question.
you know you are doing something illegal
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 09:53
"You could use they guys Boab or you could also use a QC who specialises in Tax Law who wrote this.
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/ "
Maybe you missed the last link on my post the actual ruling, i feel your pain.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Hands up every body who cheated the taxman…………….Now keep your hands up, if you also cheated on your player registration forms….Naw Barry, bankruptcy isn't a recognised "Get out of jail free card", for that. …Haun's up !
Boab, my point on player paying tax has nothing to do with what Rangers done. That is not up for debate.
It boils down to a very straight forward situation. Players who used EBTs as a way of avoiding tax and Players, managers and directors who used Film schemes as a way of avoiding tax have all been found to be in the wrong.
If you are actually arguing here that its ok to dodge tax in a film scheme but not dodge tax through an EBT then fair play to you for being open about it.
As for the ruling above, i get that. If you can direct me to any wording around it being illegal or anything in there that challenges the QC views on it, i would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
I see it is reported in the Scottish Daily Mail that Lord Willie Haughey is considering bridging the gap between the different valuations put on Hampden by the SFA and QP.
I hope that if he pursues this, he will make any offer conditional on the SFA taking steps to restore Truth and Integrity to our sport by stripping unearned titles and honours from the 6-year old club that hadn't played a game before 2012, and refusing to allow them to continue to claim to be the cheating club that was RFC(IL).
If his Lordship does not do this, he ranks himself among the 'deniers' and those of the current Celtic plc board who thus far have meekly accepted, without serious question, that their shareholders may possibly have been ripped off for millions by the Governance body of our game.
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 09:53
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/
Who to believe eh ? A QC with years experience whom according to Allyjambo must be DIM for disagreeing with a blogger on the internet.
===============================
Is that the best you could find? It's full of ifs buts and maybes.
Perhaps you should take equal note of his reference of him having no connection to "Rangers or its successor entities". It is a QC saying this after all.
And talking of QCs, I trust that you now accept that Donald Findlay QC's submissions to the High Court in the Whyte trial must also be believed. After all he's a QC with years of experience.
Nah, I thought not.
I honestly don't know why you have picked this subject up once again. Trying to defend the indefensible in Rangers, who knowingly lied to and obstructed HMRC throughout their legitimate enquiries, the same HMRC who described the conduct of the pre-Whyte Rangers regime as being "tantamount to fraud"
Call it out for what it is man!
I'm not in any shape or form saying the QC is correct. I don't however think he is DIM, just because he disagrees with your view on it.
There is a difference.
Ps. I didn't bring it up. I responded to someone else bringing it up. I think its important people have the right of reply and right of expressing their opinions.
Interesting side note on the film scheme scheme mentioned over the last few days.
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/man-utd-and-liverpool-stars-face-250m-film-scheme-tax-bills/a1109184
"A Liverpool player is also believed to have put forward £10.4 million to avoid taxes on his salary….."
"HMRC is now trying to claw back at least 70% of the amounts put in, plus interest and fines, meaning they are likely to repay close to what they put into the scheme."
One can only wonder which Liverpool player it was……
OttoKaiser 4th September 2018 at 11:07
'….One can only wonder which Liverpool player it was……'
__________________________
There used to be a wee phrase about 'like calling unto like' !
The Chair of the FCA was also caught up in it. I think people fail to understand the belief put in professionals giving advice including showing examples and letters from HMRC saying they believe them to be ok.
I still vehemently disagree with retrospective changes to rules.
Homunculus
your comment about iridium and value
Values of things are a consequence of shared conceptions of utility (widely defined) and as such are based on subjective assessments.
I believe that there is an Objective order with all that leads to. Understanding that makes Truth a profoundly important thing- as many here believe.
Tax Avoidance Evasion Management
It should be realised that these are used not as normal English but with Technical Meanings. Often that leads to confusion. Listen to Hom on this lads and lassies he seems to know that stuff well
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 09:53
"You could use they guys Boab or you could also use a QC who specialises in Tax Law who wrote this.
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/ "
Think i will give your man a miss seems to have lost more than he has won, would fit in over by if they ever need a lawyer who works the system and would make a goodbed fellow for Davie.
<
p style=”margin-left:0cm; margin-right:0cm”>https://order-order.com/2018/06/18/maughams-mystery-100000-donor/
Looks like I was correct the other day sevco keeper cleared well at least they are consistent. I wonder if Ajer has a case to answer for getting in the way of the kick. So glad to know every case of kicking an opponent will now be thrown out.
QC’s generally aren’t dim
People who write “ they guys” rather than “those guys” and “ what Rangers done “ rather than “ what Rangers did “ , they are generally dim or at least much dimmer than they would like people to believe
Not to worry though , when the next “dinner “ is attended by a mixture of fantasy Oxford dons and Poet Laureates , we’ll get a 30 line rebuttal telling us our understanding of the correct use of English is wrong
Shock Horror!
Another Ibrox whitewash.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45409871
They are free to do whatever they want with impunity.
How on earth can we find 3 ex-referees in Scotland who are not part of the Ibrox faithful.
Another shocking decision which highlights again the incompetence/corruption from the offices of the SFA.
Ambidextrous ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11522525/Labours-non-dom-adviser-represented-celebrity-tax-dodge-film-schemes.html
Apropos of nothing much, Charles Randell, former lawyer and currently Chairman of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (appointed by HM Treasury), an external member of the Prudential Regulation Committee of the Bank of England and a non-executive board member of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had a wee dabble in the Film industry himself.
Specifically Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP.
In what can only be described as a stunning coincidence other partners included a number of celebrity and sports star investors, reportedly including Steven Gerrard, Ryan Giggs and David Beckham.
Its a small World after all.
Morelos and McGregor allowed to kick players with impunity; Ryan Jack and Steven Gerrard criticising and demanding action against match officials without punishment – "whit's the SFA daein' Tom?"
Barcabhoy 4th September 2018 at 13:27
QC’s generally aren’t dim
====================================
They also rarely work without an agenda, given to them by people who pay them handsomely for their troubles.
I would also point out that they often take opposing sides in a debate, one of them wins and one of them loses.
They don't get fussed about that as they probably didn't agree the position in the first place, but were perfectly happy to collect a pretty penny for arguing it, often based on esoteric minutiae.
There seems to be some mystique about QCs and their apparent omniscience where you wouldn't get the same obsequiousness towards say a civil engineer (they aren't all civil btw). I know which one I want making the decisions when designing and building bridges.
No hiding place.
https://www.accountancyage.com/tag/tax-avoidance/
So , we have a player who thinks a referee should be demoted because he disagrees with a decision called up to the National squad without censure .You have a goalkeeper who kicks an opponent ("blatant" , according to the aggressor's manager" ,deemed to have no case to answer by a group of referees . (I'm not forgetting Morelos or Brown or Naismith or the others I didn't see but were reported )You have officials at a game who can't see a goal being scored .In my opinion ,the contract we have with the current group for referee provision should be terminated , and tenders sought for provision of competent, full-time, non-conflicted officials , even from abroad , to officiate in the top two tiers . Our lot should control the other divisions , and if they perform well, be given the opportunity to join the elite group . I was out last night with a chartered accountant , a physiotherapist (also lower-grade referee) and a computer analyst and the consensus was that the standard of refereeing in this country is holding football back ,and adding to the image problems for Scottish football abroad . We are getting the standard of football that the referees allow ,and it is not a high standard .
bfbpuzzled
Gold and silver have 6000 years of history of being used as money and during that time have never been valued as worthless by mankind, hundreds of examples of fiat currency over a far shorter timeframe have.
Moving on to today's decision by the CO on the Ajer incident , if you want an example of something with no inherent value then that's on a par with the Zimbabwe dollar.
Ian Maxwell has been in post as CEO of the SFA for over 100 days.
Let that sink in for a moment…
…then ask yourself, 'What's he done in that time?'
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/09/04/lashing-out-for-special-treatment/
10 million buy out clause for the buffalo burger lmfao.
So one of the untouchables kicks a prostrate Celtic player and receives no retrospective punishment.
And Celtic say………………………………………………………………hee-haw as usual.
Their silence on such matters is part of the problem.
So it is now an alleged kick he apparently seemed to kick all these folks need to get their erchies down to specsaver. 3 former officials up here can't agree well I will take what a former ref in England said red card all day and on the jackass foul same former ref foul on Rogic jackass jumped into him.
Just wondering if one of the resident TRFC followers, or indeed anyone can give a rational explanation as to why no action will be taken against mcgregor for his kick at Ajer. How is it possible that 3 ex grade one refs cannot come to a unanimous decision for that incident when the players own manager states that it was BLATANT.
Is it a case now that the COMPLIANT OFFICER and her unbiased helpers are only there to punish offences against TRFC.
It feels like business as usual honest mistakes etc etc the game is sinking further and further into the mire just to keep a basket case of a club on the go.
Just emailed SFA, wont hold my breath for reply :-
Sir/Madam,
I would like you to furnish me with the background to the decision on the lack of action take against the Rangers Goalkeeper, A. McGregor following Sunday,s derby game against Celtic at Parkhead.
A worldwide audience say him deliberately kick out at Celtic,s K. Ajer, he own manager stated it was a sending off, therefore my basic question is, what was the rationale for not issuing a retrospective ban?
I look forward to a speedy response to this enquiry.
Regards,
I genuinely havent seen the McGregor kick, but ive read enough commentary on it and also spoke to trusted colleagues who said it should be red.
I dont think we should go down the route of honest mistakes as we have had a horrendous start to the season with wrong decisions against Rangers. In the first 2 games of the season, we have had a man sent off in the first half and a clear red card for the other team denied. If the refs are biased against Rangers then they must be honking at it.
Surely if you are going to let a team win, you keep eleven men on the park at all costs and send off opposing players at the smallest of opportunities.
But in summary, no i cant understand why they havent given McGregor punishment. Ive also scratched my head at the amount of times Brown gets off with it. And yeah that is a huge dollop of whataboutery.
On that one I can't. The company I was with watching the game on Sunday (3 Rangers, 2 Celtic fans) were all of the opinion he would be given a retrospective ban. So much so we were looking at the fixtures he was likely to miss. The Morelos, Naismith and Brown 'kick outs' had a bit of ambiguity (although personally I felt all three were red cards) but this one was an open/shut case IMHO. Between those, and Ronaldo's kick out against Morocco in the World Cup this summer, I feel referees (not just in Scotland) are setting a dangerous precident.
My comment has been in moderation for one and a half hours. Why?
Hi Law Man,
Here's that QC again, something about courts and tax avoidance.
'For tax QC Jolyon Maugham the verdict is a profoundly important decision as a matter of principle.
“It confirms something that everyone knows anyway,” Maugham told AccountingWEB, “namely that the courts are now extremely hostile to what they regard as tax avoidance.
“The Supreme Court could have decided this in quite a fact-specific way but they didn’t. There are certainly comments [in the judgement] that will trouble all of those who have entered into EBT arrangements which they haven’t settled.
“HMRC will also be pleased because they’ve established that the desired tax treatment of EBTs is very difficult to obtain. It’s a big blow for those relying on their EBT treatments succeeding.”
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/final-whistle-blows-on-rangers-in-big-tax-case
The legal /illegal debate is in danger of becoming the new OC/NC imho.
As for the SFA and the new CO then it looks already to be shaping up to be another season of honest mistakes. The ex referee on SKY had “no skin in the game” and gave his opinion without fear or favour.
Just as well we have an international break now so we can all move on.
Well done to Scotland's Wummins team for qualifying for the World Cup finals for the first time today. They've put various mens' teams to shame.
Just in case you were wondering, an illegal is just a sick bird.
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 17:10
0
11
Rate This
But in summary, no i cant understand why they havent given McGregor punishment. Ive also scratched my head at the amount of times Brown gets off with it. And yeah that is a huge dollop of whataboutery.
====================
Do you mean like the one where he got off with only a yellow when cheating diving lafferty threw himself into the air and rolled into a ball clutching his ankle when there was absolutely no contact whatsoever you mean like that yeah. That lafferty dirty cheater disliked him since he got mulgrew sent off when he faked getting butted.
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 17:10
0
12
Rate This
I genuinely havent seen the McGregor kick
==================
I genuinely find that hard to believe.
However if you honestly haven't then check it out and give us your honest opinion.