.. 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.
Darkbeforedawn 7th September 2018 at 18:24 Its your money mate knock yourself out to me its not a Celtic rivalry issue, its providing legroom for thieves, when none should be given.
I will always support the Scottish national team when they are playing. I am Scottish, I am a football supporter, I support the Scottish football team.
However the SFA appointed tax avoiding manager standing in our technical area doesn't help me maintain that position. It won't change it but it just irks me that we have to put up with our standards getting so low.
We can surely do better than that tax cheat.
Don't usually bother about TUs/TDs, but I see my recent post about Chris Davies' comments has attracted twice as many TDs as TUs. Can the TDers clarify, is that because you believe Celtic and TRFC employees should never exhibit any signs of friendship?
I think we are all in agreement over McLeish being the wrong choice albeit for different reasons. Personally I wouldn’t be bothered about his tax affairs or past if I felt he was the right man for the job – sadly he hasn’t been relevant for 15 years, and I’ll jever forgive him for being so naive as to play three up front away to Georgia! The way the SFA have conducted the manager searches in recent years is utterly shambolic. Just when Strachan seemed to have a team that gelled, was playing well and winning games – unbeeten in 2017 – they sack him! They put Mackay in the role then tell him he’s sacked the day of a game! They seemed certain they were getting O-Neil without actually asking him first!! Then after all that time plump for an unemployed manager who was never even very good in his hay day. It’s a depressing time to be a Scotland fan but I think our day will come.
Darkbeforedawn
7th September 2018 at 20:57
I think we are all in agreement over McLeish being the wrong choice albeit for different reasons. Personally I wouldn’t be bothered about his tax affairs or past if I felt he was the right man for the job
===================================================
I would, he's a tax cheat who personally stole hundreds of thousands of pounds from all of us. He also admitted that Rangers did it because it was the only way for the club to compete and win football competitions in Scotland.
Would you seriously be OK with that if he was a good football manager.
I couldn't disagree more. It is an affront to all of us that he is the National football manager.
I don’t personally think that folk who try and be inventive with their taxes deserve to be ostracised. Let’s face it, who on this planet would say no if someone said ‘there’s this legal loophole (at the time) which means you will pay less tax”? There are some crimes that would be inexcusable but that for me isn’t one of them. My issue is he is 100% the wrong manager. He was never very good, and it strikes or “well we had an ex Celtic manager as our last manager so we better get a Rangers one now”. Shocking shocking decision
Tax avoidance is not a "legal loophole".
I'm afraid that is just one more myth that has been repeated often enough that people now feel comfortable in repeating it.
Though I have to congratulate you on your twisted logic in bringing Celtic into the debate, for no obvious reason.
McLeish is a tax cheat, he should not be our national team manager. That he is embarrasses us all. Its that simple.
With all due respect I wouldn’t say that was bringing Celtic into it – I only stated that our corrupt SFA felt, in my opinion, they had to appoint a Rangers man to appease the fans since they had Strachan previously. There was no negative points whatsoever in the mention of Celtic. In fact I have always had nothing but respect for Strachan and thought he was doing a very good job for us. I personally feel the SFA felt a ‘need’ to appoint a ‘Rangers man’ and McLeish was the only person available.
With regards to tax avoidance I don’t have any hard feelings for those who have indulged in it as I know if I had the money and the chance to avoid tax I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if I felt (as those in question did) it was a loophole I wouldn’t be caught for
Darkbeforedawn 7th September 2018 at 22:48
With regards to tax avoidance I don’t have any hard feelings for those who have indulged in it as I know if I had the money and the chance to avoid tax I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if I felt (as those in question did) it was a loophole I wouldn’t be caught for.
==============================================
If it was a "loophole" how could you be "caught".
Caught clearly implies having done something wrong.
You can't be caught if its a loophole.
Its too late for me to be pointing out your non sequiturs, you really should be doing that yourself before posting this nonsense .
Darkbeforedawn 7th September 2018 at 22:31
"..‘there’s this legal loophole (at the time) which means you will pay less tax”? '
__________________________________
It is impossible to believe that the EBT recipients, even the dumbest of them, never mind the Ogilvies and Sounness' and McLeishs etc etc, did not know what was going on, wages wise!
It's also impossible to believe that the SFA did not know, when a club annually reported the ridiculously low wages of hugely expensive players that no other Scottish team could even dream of having on their payroll.!
That's the problem I have: that the cheating b……d was cheating not only us as taxpayers , but us as the very lifeblood of the sport Scottish football.
And that personnel in the SFA ( and the SPL) who had personal knowledge of being remunerated in unusual ways, did not think to raise questions when the accounts of the cheating club were examined. Or failed even to examine those accounts,so as not to see the truth.
That betokens to me a deep-seated readiness to cheat, and abuse their own office in order to assist a cheat.
And they are still doing it, by continuing to foster a lie.
And to accept as manager of the national team a mini-DK type, appointed by mini-DK types, is something I personally cannot do.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary
Tax avoidance/ evasion, effectively could reduce the amount spent on each of these.
Darkbeforedawn 7th September 2018 at 22:31 ==
I don’t personally think that folk who try and be inventive with their taxes deserve to be ostracised. Let’s face it, who on this planet would say no if someone said ‘there’s this legal loophole (at the time) which means you will pay less tax”? There are some crimes that would be inexcusable but that for me isn’t one of them.
==================
I think they do deserve to be ostracised. The problem for RFC and their employees was that there was never a loophole for them, at the time, or at any time since.
The Law Society had been investigating Baxendale Walker for some time and the legitimacy of his schemes had been questioned in a report produced in June 2003. As a result, HMRC started to look at his clients and investigations into RFC's scheme started in January 2004. Those early inquiries were met by obfuscation and denials by Murray Group officials acting on behalf of RFC, including the pivotal, dishonest and deliberate, denial of the existence of side letters in April 2005.
Baxendale Walker was actually suspended by the Law Society from March 2003 and was finally struck off in September 2006, but guess what, RFC continued to consult with him during his suspension and continued to do so after he was struck off.
Virtually all of the above information can be found in the FTTT report.
I learned from an early age that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Those who took part took a risk too far in trying to avoid paying tax. Why do you think they asked for indemnities if they knew for certain that what they were doing was perfectly legal and above board.
RFC cheated the taxman, the players and club officials that participated in the scheme cheated the taxman. They deserve, and will receive, no sympathy from me.
Darkbeforedawn 7th September 2018 at 22:48
'..
I know if I had the money and the chance to avoid tax I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if I felt (as those in question did) it was a loophole I wouldn’t be caught for '
____________________________
What further need for witnesses are there? You have condemned yourself out of your own mouth as blood brother to the cheating SDM and those who abused their office in aiding and abetting in that cheating.
Be off with you.
I now rate your contribution to debate as worthless.
I dont think I need to explain this to be honest. Loopholes exist all the time within the tax sytstem, which accountants attempt to exploit. HMRC find out about them and find the schemes operate outwith the intention of the law and retrospectively change them. It’s not limited to Rangers by any stretch of the imagination. It’s what makes accountants the big bucks. I could give examples of at least a dozen such schemes that at the time accountants proclaimed to be legal that were retrospectively found to be illegal without once touching on footballers or football clubs.
JC, I think to debate the moralities of my argument would be to open up a far far wider argument on the moralities of the current tax system. As someone who will likely never be lucky enough to worry about a 40% tax rate far less a 45% one, even I do question why those earning more money should be taxed a higher percentage than the rest of us? If we are talking morals then why is it acceptable for the country to victimise the successful by taxing a larger percentage than anyone else? The moralities and the accepted/unacceptable approaches to taxation is something that divides the country and has done for generations.
In this case I apologise if, having reviewed it, my rather flippant comment has offended you. It was more meant as a jealous “hell if I had their money I’d do the same”, and was misjudged.
For what it’s worth I don’t agree or defend SDM (of which I despise putting the ‘S’ before) in one single thing he has ever done. He knew full wel what he was doing, he pretty much threw all his employees to the dogs, he let my club as well as his own businesses, his employees and everyone else circle to the brink. He should never be compared to those who worked for him, who likely heeded advice from accountants who would state “hey; don’t worry; this arrangement is above board and will save you x amount”.
Benefit Fraud £2 billion
Tax Avoidance £1.7 billion
Tax Evasion £5.2 billion
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/15/uk-tax-authorities-hmrc-record-informants
No hiding place, no quarter given.
Darkbeforedawn
7th September 2018 at 23:33
I could give examples of at least a dozen such schemes that at the time accountants proclaimed to be legal that were retrospectively found to be illegal without once touching on footballers or football clubs.
==========================
Fair enough, please do.
At least a dozen it is.
Go.
Sorry for the lazy reply, I was going to copy a dozen in but all from the same source so I’ll just link the page of the schemes accountants once claimed were legal that have now been closed
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-avoidance-schemes-currently-in-the-spotlight
The majority of which (95%?) have no relation to any members of Scottish football.
Darkbeforedawn 7th September 2018 at 23:33
I dont think I need to explain this to be honest. Loopholes exist all the time within the tax sytstem, which accountants attempt to exploit. HMRC find out about them and find the schemes operate outwith the intention of the law and retrospectively change them. It’s not limited to Rangers by any stretch of the imagination. It’s what makes accountants the big bucks. I could give examples of at least a dozen such schemes that at the time accountants proclaimed to be legal that were retrospectively found to be illegal without once touching on footballers or football clubs.
==================================
Don't you even accept that what you describe is morally wrong?
You describe situations which "operate outwith the intention of the law". Don't you believe that it is wrong? At least our Law Lords are starting to interpret the law in a purposive way rather than by the letter of the law, i.e. what the law maker intend to legislate for or against, instead of overpaid tax specialists recognising that certain words used could be interpreted differently, and exploited to the benefit of those who probably already have wealth off the radar.
Those accountants and tax specialists employed by large companies are often trained by HMRC, but can get bigger rewards by using their knowledge of the "system" to reduce their employers tax liability. Murray Group's Ian McMillan (of the side-letter denial infamy) was one such ex HMRC employee.
I'm sorry, but those who seek to exploit weaknesses in countries' tax legislation are up there in my list of least respected professionals.
I think we are all aware of corporations that do likewise, such as Amazon, Google, Apple, Starbucks etc. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if any UK government decided to shut down their UK operations if they didn't agree to contribute a fairer representation of their profits generated on these shores.
Not wishing to be facetious, but how many of you Christians think that tax evasion / avoidance chimes well with your religion ?
Well that's opened a can of worms.
Income tax amounts to only 25% of all tax receipts by HMRC.
VAT 18%. NI 19%. Corporation 8%. Property 9%. Fuel a whopping 4%.
The richest 1% is classed as those earning above £164k and they pay 27% of all income tax. And that figure is growing.
Easyjambo mentions Amazon etc. They are high turnover low margin businesses. We get low prices, they get high turnover but ultimately pay less tax. But at least they contribute to the wealth of society.
I would suggest that where our angst lies is the richest 0.1%. They have capital in excess of £100 million tucked away in Swiss bank accounts. It is essentially dead money. It does no one any good. It is not invested, it creates no wealth for the country and it it is not used by the people that own it. Most of the world's wealth is totally useless as is.
But this could be changed by allowing governments access to this capital via the banking system. Individuals could still make a profit on their wealth whilst their capital is used for the common good.
Land tax is perhaps the biggest swindle in a nation states income.. Large areas of land are owned by corporations/individuals who do not pay for that ownership.
My view is that you may "own" the land but you are actually leasing the land from the nation.
The dead capital amounts to trillions. Murray, king et al are just self serving shysters.
Darkbeforedawn 8th September 2018 at 00:09
Sorry for the lazy reply, I was going to copy a dozen in but all from the same source so I’ll just link the page of the schemes accountants once claimed were legal that have now been closed
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-avoidance-schemes-currently-in-the-spotlight
The majority of which (95%?) have no relation to any members of Scottish football.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I think the point is being missed.
The Murray/Rangers scheme of tax avoidance (because that is what it was, would have worked) but Murray chose to add a bit on by providing contracual payments to the players ( ie the side letters). Which they lied about and denied the existence of.
They needed to do it it to keep the old Rangers afloat and to win the league to access European Champs money (merely to service the debt). It was obvious from about the time when there was a rights issue in about 2005(?) where the fans raised around £1.5M and Murray Group underwrote the other £50m.
But the other £50m was just a debt swap into the Murray Group facilitated by the BoS before the Lloyds takover.
The great and the good of Scotia were up to their necks in BoS "business".
https://www.facebook.com/694170540/posts/10160910368760541/
Since Amazon and taxation are on the agenda tonight I have attached the above link. It outlines the view of Senator Bernie Saunders who explains how ordinary taxpayers subsidise companies such as Amazon in the USA and elsewhere. This link is to Facebook but it was originally in the Huffington Post.
25
0
Rate This
Allyjambo 6th September 2018 at 09:52
Anyone else get the feeling that there's a one team relay race being run and the baton has just been passed on?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
To the contrary AJ, I see a mutli-team relay race where one team dropped the baton. However the offending team kept on running through the finishing line, smugly claiming victory, with the anchor leg claiming "I don't need no steenkin baton".
Meanwhile, one of the track officials picks up the "dropped" baton, secreting it under his blazer, mumbling "move along, nothing to see hear".
At the medal ceremony God Save The Queen is played triumphantly, while the hacks in the press box report enthusiastically of the wonder of such a great achievement and how the weight of a little baton would have made no difference to the result.
"What I do know is that we also signed a contract which said, if there were any problems in the future, Rangers would deal with them. So I didn’t have anything to worry about"
Nacho Novo yesterday 7th Sept 2018.
Problem is that Rangers no longer around to pick up the tab…or are they?
paddy malarkey
8th September 2018 at 00:47
================================
Render unto Caeser and do so on.
Nach Novo's views on EBTs from the Record.
The bit I highlighted is the most telling. After telling us that he knew nothing and left everything to his agent, but he was clearly aware that what he signed included an indemnity.
You don't seek an indemnity unless there is something in the arrangement that could lead to problems in the future. I'm certain that he was fully aware, either through the club or his agent, exactly what he was getting into. He accepted poor advice both from the club and his agent. He signed the contract. He has to accept responsibility.
I don't buy this stuff that players don't take an interest in what they earn. If a club offers to double your wages (or even triple them with a tax wheeze), then you don't say no, I'm happy where I am and earning what I do.
The only sympathy I have for Novo is for his health problems.
John Clark 7th September 2018 at 23:23
It's also impossible to believe that the SFA did not know, when a club annually reported the ridiculously low wages of hugely expensive players that no other Scottish team could even dream of having on their payroll.!
—————————————————————————————————————–
That's the crux of the matter right there . The SFA has never explained why they allowed this to continue over 10 years .
EJ …. "“what i do know is that we also signed a contract which said, if there were any problems in the future, rangers would deal with them. so i didn’t have anything to worry about. i just wanted to play. now, years later, the rules have been changed and i find myself in this situation. i can’t go into details but what i can say is it’s just not fair."
Surely any self-respecting journalist would also join the same dots that you have? And then challenge the speaker on this?
Obviously not in this case.
And that last bit. Why can't Novo expand upon his comment? Is he taking legal action of some kind? If so, against whom? Or dare he not utter the words that the club that indemnified him is 'dead'?
I also think that the Supreme Court decided on what was 'fair' in this case.
SFNASA
Ex Ludo
An interesting idea by Sanders. Especially for the USA which has no universal health care system and 40 million people living in abject poverty.
Apple is the company I detest the most. I would like to know the mark up for an £800 quid phone made in China from mass produced parts built by what is essentially, slave labour.
Apple has a cash pile of $285 billion sitting around doing nothing. Amazon cash and cash equivalents has $30 billion.. Over a trillion dollars is sat doing nothing in the USA top companies.
This is dead cash which could be used as a benefit for citizens and a nations infrastructure. And is only the tip of the iceberg.
DBTD seems to think it's OK to dodge tax. Said something about rich folk keeping their own money. I disagree and tried to set it out here; first time tried to put this into words so a bit of a ramble I'm afraid and don't have time to edit.
There seems to be an acceptance – even by those who think that the rich should be taxed as heavily as the nation requires; they seem to think it is a moral obligation they should give a big chunk of "their" money to the country. Note the quotation marks. It is in fact not all "their" money. All big systems require to some extent a top-down, pyramid structure to get things done.
However – and there's plenty of evidence, e.g. the recent banking scandals – that a lot of people get to the top without actually contributing that much. Even when they do, so also do the people who work for them (and whose supposedly smaller tax percentage actually hits their wages more than the very rich who will have millions left even after big tax payments); these people, to perform their jobs properly, need to be educated, kept well, be able to get to work (transport), all stuff that needs to be paid out of tax and all of which goes to helping the rich get rich. So too with infrastructure – buildings, roads, rail upkeep, airport, ports, all have to be paid for out of taxes (and yes our private rail system sucks in millions of tax money).
So the rich aren't paying taxes out of the goodness of their own hearts. They pay because we need as much tax money as possible so the country and its people can have a decent life – AND it also helps big business. They pay more because they take in more (out of the economy) and on top of that the amount of wealth they have isn't always because they "deserve it" it's because being at the top of the pramid means they are in a position to take more regardless – we often see huge pay-offs for failure – failure far worse than things which would get ordinary workers fired with no pay-off. In recent decades it's worse because money flies out of the country into tax havens. In the old days rich guys dodging tax would at least be spending a lot of money in our country. Now they send it out. Guys like that dodge tax because they're greedy and selfish and don't give a damn about the rest of the country.
A bit of a rant I'm afraid but I've never tried to put this into words before and it's a bit disjointed. Basically these points: the rich get their money to some extent deservedly but also more than they deserve because they're in a position to take it – that's the way the system works and it's difficult to alter that with disrupting the whole economy. A way to ameliorate that is through tax and spend on what the country needs. What needs to be remembered that what's spent from taxes also helps the rich, or at least those who run/own businesses) as it produces the infrastructure and trained workforce they need. To dodge tax is to undermine this – basically the rich often want to have their cake and eat it: to not pay tax but still have all the things that taxation does for them. That of course is not even mentioning the moral side of it, of common decency of wanting to use taxes to create a decent society.
History
Income tax was introduced into Great Britain by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798, to pay for weapons and equipment for the French Revolutionary Wars. This was to be ‘a temporary measure’ and came into force on 9 January 1799.
Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (equivalent to £5,800 in 2016) and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings in the pound (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million a year, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled only a little over £6 million.
The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%.
Future
Following the passage of the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Parliament was given greater powers over income tax. In the 2016/17 tax year it had to set a Scottish Rate of Income Tax. The idea of the power was that the UK tax rate would be reduced by 10%, with the block grant being reduced by an equivalent amount.In 2016/17 the Scottish budget set the SRIT at 10%, which left tax rates at the same level as in the rest of the UK.
The Scotland Act 2016 gave the Scottish Parliament full control over income tax rates and bands, except the personal allowance. In 2017/18, the only notable difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK was that the higher rate limit was frozen in Scotland. In the draft budget for 2018/19, new rates and bands have been proposed.
“facts are chiels that winna ding”
coineanachantaighe 8th September 2018 at 12:06 :
Of course that's the case. What makes it worse is rewarding those who adopt the attitude of earning more and stashing it away including admiration for those who do not pay their taxes as proscribed. In Scotland this is typified by the continued lauding of the old Rangers who set up their remuneration of players to include unlawful tax avoidance (breaking SFA rules on the way by dint of side contracts) and then continued idolisation of a bunch of ex players who shafted the rest of us also. Bollox to any whataboutery, systematic and long running cheating, that's all it is and let's not let it go.
Finnmcool@11.51
Sanders is obviously no fan of Jeff Bezos but I would agree with you that Apple is also an interesting case. It’s quite bizarre when the US President makes all sorts of threatening statements re US trade with China when one of the most profitable US companies makes its stuff there. America’s not first so far as Apple is concerned.
woodstein
8th September 2018 at 13:01
===================================
In Scotland the threshold at which someone pays the higher rate of tax is lower, the rate which is then paid is higher.
In Scotland the threshold is £43,001, in the rest of the UK it is £46,351. So £3,350 of a difference.
The rates are Scotland 41%, the rest of the UK 40%
Basically if two people do the same job and earn the same salary the one in Scotland pays more tax.
Currently the difference in what is paid is c£700 per year, but that will continue to increase as the rest of the UK moves towards a £50k threshold and Scotland does not intend to follow suit. The difference at that point will be more like £1,400. Or over £100 per month.
coineanachantaighe 8th September 2018 at 12:06
______________________________________________
https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-government-tax-dodging-the-reason-for-the-eu-referendum
I found this most enlightening.
Paddy Malarkey
Romans Chapter 13 is clear on what Christians should do on taxation and other secular matters.
The Reformation was among other things a reaction against too high taxation to fund the new St Peters. The building has proved to be good value for money unlike the new Parliament building in Edinburgh which I do not think is a £400 million building fine though it is.
On these kind of matters I put a good deal of store in the views of Peter Maurin's Easy Essays which are neither easy or essays- they are available online.
Re Nacho Novo
. 'now, years later, the rules have been changed and i find myself in this situation'
What rules changed ? I thought they were only being enforced .
paddy malarkey
8th September 2018 at 13:49
=========================================
You are correct, he is talking rubbish.
Contractual payments were never allowed via an EBT.
What has been confirmed by the Supreme Court is that all disguised remuneration is taxable. They did that by reference to the existing legislation.
"I see nothing in the wider purpose of the legislation, which taxes remuneration from employment, which excludes from the tax charge or the PAYE regime remuneration which the employee is entitled to have paid to a third party. Thus, if an employee enters into a contract or contracts with an employer which provide that he will receive a salary of £X and that as part of his remuneration the employer will also pay £Y to the employee’s spouse or aunt Agatha, I can ascertain no statutory purpose for taxing the former but not the latter. The breadth of the wording of the tax charge and the absence of any restrictive wording in the primary legislation, do not give any support for inferring an intention to exclude from the tax charge such a payment to a third party which the employer and employee have agreed as part of the employee’s entitlement. Both sums involve the payment of remuneration for the employee’s work as an employee."
There's nothing new about it, the Supreme Court was just laying it out for the hard of thinking.
I see Novo still conflates “rule change” with “getting caught” too.
ernie 8th September 2018 at 13:05
In 2012 it was not unusual for the media to be demanding some Corporate behemoth pay more tax, while at the same demanding Rangers tax evasion be overlooked!
Apr 3, 2009 · Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor have been banned for "LIFE" from representing their country, the Scottish …
Giovanni van Bronckhorst never had an EBT in the three years he was at Ibrox. I'm sure that with him being the odd one out his fellow players would have known of his stance and the reason why he declined Sir David's kind offer. The constant pleas of ignorance among these RFC beneficiaries doesn't wash with me.
From the time the EBT list was first published, not one gentleman of the media has asked GvB the simple question "why did you not take out an EBT?". There might have been an alternative answer to the obvious 'for more cash in my pocket', but, in my opinion, the SMSM has remained silent for fear of the player exposing the real reason for the scheme.
Billydug 8th September 2018 at 14:08
Apr 3, 2009 – Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor have been banned for "LIFE"…
They were.
They were banned for the "LIFE" of the club they played for.
Easy mistake to think it meant banned for their lives…
Homunculus 8th September 2018 at 13:44
I am confused (easily done).
Scottish income tax 2018/19
https://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/Scottishincometax2018-2019
bfbpuzzled 8th September 2018 at 13:46
I glanced through Book 1 , but found it not for me . Too much religion/sect , coupled with an easy dismissal of Proudhon and Marx simply by saying "we're better" . If I stand with anybody , it would be with Etienne-Gabriel Morelly and his(?) Code of Nature , but , then again , I'm not noted for my sanity .
Morelly proposed "Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work."
woodstein
8th September 2018 at 14:51
======================================
Apologies, the Scottish threshold has gone up from £43,001 to £43,430, or 1%.
Basically the Scottish Government are increasing the threshold in line with inflation, as they said they would. Whilst the UK Government is increasing it with a view to getting it to £50,000 by April 2020.
paddy malarkey
8th September 2018 at 15:47
================================
If it gives me pleasure to need an Aston Martin DB11 to get to my work every day do I get one.
Homunculus 8th September 2018 at 16:05
Of course you do . Just toddle down to the nearest Aston Martin dealership and tell them I sent you . They'll sort you out .
Paddymalarkey@15.47
Any room for Jean Jacques Rousseau in there? p.s. he was a Freemason but don’t tell anyone, it’s a secret.
“David Murray transferred ownership of his assets (including Rangers FC until sold to Whyte) to a Dublin trust in 2011. He will likely escape having to pay a penny of the near £6m tax due on his personal EBT.”
This is from The Tribute Act on Twitter. Leaving aside the obvious irony, is this accurate?
Paddy Malarkey
The Easy Essays were distillations of long study of many books and were published to be the basis of discussions rather than being as simple as they look-many books and theses have been written on these( I wrote 15000 words on part of one regarding usury.) The views on Rousseau and Marx derive from an anarchist outlook.
The movement he started is radically pacifist and based on voluntary poverty similar to the kind of thing you mention-a gift economy. It is most often identified with Dorothy Day and is too strong a medicine for me.
But enough of that kind of stuff from me
A comparative analysis of the reporting on last nights defeat against that of last Sunday’s glasgow derby may uncover the differences in opinion amongst our MSM as to what defines a ‘heavy defeat’ and whether progress is actually being made; be it at international level or club level in the case of McLeish’s or Gerrard’s sides. It will be of equal interest to read the fallout from the refereeing decisions and whether opportunities were missed last night, for either side, as a result of poor refereeing. Can we expect that debate to go on for days as well?
Alex McLeish should be nowhere near the national team. Nor should Allan McGregor. For all the reasons previously stated on this site. In McLeish’s case, it was more than interesting that James McFadden was dispatched to the frontline to comment on the summer call off’s to South America. Reason? How could big Eck possibly question a player’s commitment to the national cause? Can you imagine the phone calls ‘Mano a Mano’ between respective club managers and McLeish about ‘commitment’ when a squad player pulls out from a meaningless match ‘last minute’?
In McGregor’s case, the MSM seemed to find some interest in an away supporters nose picking antics at last week’s match. (Honestly; look it up!) McGregor was banned for life from international duties for this. Did they ever consider this poor chap was picking his in a show of solidarity with Ferguson & McGregor? Na; they made him a laughing stock. But then, the SFA do a good job of making us a laughing stock by picking the likes of McLeish.
Ex Ludo 8th September 2018 at 16:37
And a lapsed Catholic , apparently . All travelling the same road coming from different starting points . I'm with him on the inherent good in man but not with the notion that early man lived a solitary existence . PS I've not dabbled in this stuff for many a year and am having to "refresh" as I go .
bfbpuzzled
8th September 2018 at 16:55
==========================================
Paddy Malarkey
The Easy Essays were distillations of long study of many books and were published to be the basis of discussions rather than being as simple as they look-many books and theses have been written on these( I wrote 15000 words on part of one regarding usury.)
===========================================
No-one asked him to, there just wasn't anything good on the telly.
Ex Ludo 8th September 2018 at 16:49
“David Murray transferred ownership of his assets (including Rangers FC until sold to Whyte) to a Dublin trust in 2011. He will likely escape having to pay a penny of the near £6m tax due on his personal EBT.”
This is from The Tribute Act on Twitter. Leaving aside the obvious irony, is this accurate?
===============================
I don't believe it is accurate, at least as far as RFC is concerned.
There were a series of share movements in the first few days of February 2011 that ended with the major shareholding in RFC plc residing with Murray MHL Limited. That company was a subsidiary undertaking of Murray Group Holdings Limited which in turn was a subsidiary undertaking of Murray International Holdings Limited. All three companies were registered in the UK. Murray Group Holdings Limited is still in liquidation while the other two are dissolved.
The series of transactions also saw Murray Sports Limited transfer its holding in the club to Murray MHL Limited and also saw Dave King take a direct shareholding in RFC plc for the first time, under the name of Metlika Trading Limited.
https://www.investegate.co.uk/Index.aspx?searchtype=3&words=rfc&pno=4
Check the "Holding(s) in Company" statements dated 4th and 7th February 2011.
Murray MHL Limited’s annual accounts for the year to 30 June 2011 also shows the asset write down of £54.5m after RFC plc was sold for £1.
Further to my post above, I don't know if there was any change to the ownership of the company at the top of the pyramid, Murray International Holdings Limited. at that time. I guess the shares in that company could have been transferred to the "Dublin Trust", but to all intents and purposes RFC plc was always a UK company and operated in accordance with UK and Scots Law (except when it acted unlawfully)
I can't see any way that David Murray would escape either repaying his EBT loans, agreeing a tax settlement with HMRC, or having a "Loan Charge" imposed on him by HMRC next April.
If the club is the same club and has provided letters of indemnity to players of said same club and it is accepted that those players were registered with the club albeit 'imperfectly' – any chance that the whole EBT indemnity issue can be considered as a footballing debt, to each individual involved, under the Five Way Agreement and thus have to be honoured by Mr King and his buddies?
Just a thought
Perhaps Nacho, feeling the pressures of normal life, mortgage, kids etc could take solace in a weekend pursuit, to take a brief break from it all. Take in a game perhaps, where all that’s required is a pie, a coffee (hate bovril) and the knowledge the two teams in front of you are playing to the rules on a level playing field?
easyJambo
8th September 2018 at 19:01
====================================
I agree.
If he was the recipient of the "loan" then he is due the tax. A convoluted structure of companies, holding companies and ownership of assets shouldn't change that.
He received the remuneration, he is ultimately responsible for the tax due I would have thought.
Unless some other entity chooses to pay it for him, in which case HMRC won't care. So long as it is paid.
Thanks for the replies to my queries @16.37&16.49
Paddymalarkey@18.14
I read philosophy for my degree but it’s been a while.
Easyhambo@18.31
I don’t recall anything from that time mentioning Dublin and I’m sure the Irish connection would have been noted.
Homunculus 8th September 2018 at 20:47
easyJambo
8th September 2018 at 19:01
====================================
I agree.
If he was the recipient of the "loan" then he is due the tax. A convoluted structure of companies, holding companies and ownership of assets shouldn't change that.
He received the remuneration, he is ultimately responsible for the tax due I would have thought.
Unless some other entity chooses to pay it for him, in which case HMRC won't care. So long as it is paid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agreed. It was after all a MIH Employee Benefit Trust so if its most senior employee received 6Mill he will be in for a fairly hefty tax bill when grossing up, interest and penalties are figured in.
wottpi 8th September 2018 at 19:17
'…any chance that the whole EBT indemnity issue can be considered as a footballing debt, to each individual involved, under the Five Way Agreement and thus have to be honoured by Mr King and his buddies? '
___________________________
I doubt it, wottpi.
In effect, CG paid the SFA to obtain their agreement that "Sevco 5088/SevcoScotland Ltd / Team 12,TRFC Ltd " would be allowed to claim to be Glasgow Rangers of 1872 vintage, in spite of the Liquidation of that club.
He agreed to pay the football debts of the liquidated club. He acknowledged no actual liability for those, and certainly accepted no liability and had no intention of paying, the tax debts of a liquidated club. Why should he? TRFC Ltd had not incurred those debts which were incurred years before it was in existence!
If HMRC cannot ( and I do have difficulty with this, as my letter to Mr Bunting indicates) legally treat TRFC Ltd as being what it claims to be in all its advertising and self-promotion in the market-place , namely, Rangers Football Club of 1872, the fact that the SFA sold its rotten soul in a private deal with CG is not going to change that.
It follows that, while HMRC cannot legally do TRFC Ltd for being that very 'Rangers' that owes them £millions in tax, they can do the EBT recipients because any indemnity promised by that 'Rangers' is worth diddly squat, because TRFC Ltd is not that 'Rangers'.
( What fun there would be if Mr King , who scouted the possibility of bringing RFC(IL) out of Liquidation by paying all its millions of pounds of debt, actually did it! I wonder if there is any kind of precedent for that scenario? Think of it: all debts paid, the original Rangers back, but without those assets that had been sold off to another club, and having to apply for re-admission to a League.)
Was it not the case that Nacho Novo was at Celtic Park negotiating transfer terms before he arrived at Ibrox? I feel sure that was the case and at the time it was understood that he was offered better terms at Ibrox. Obviously the EBT was "foisted" on him.
I have absolutely no hope of TRFC being pursued by any of the EBT holders to honour the contracts of that most dishonourable of football clubs, but I continue to wonder if they may have recourse against Murray and the other signatories to their contracts if it could be held that, in encouraging the players to enter an illegal tax avoidance scheme, they, the directors, acted outside of their roles as company directors.
Allyjambo
9th September 2018 at 06:17
====================================
Given that we all know that the club and company were the same thing the only option open to the players would be to take legal action against a company already in liquidation. With creditors owed tens of millions more than any creditors pot will ever hold. With no assets because the administrator sold them off for a song prior to the liquidator taking over.
I suspect any solicitor would advise a player that they were throwing good money after bad. Unless of course it was a no win no fee arrangement. With a best case scenario of just becoming another unsecured creditor.
wottpi 8th September 2018 at 19:17
In my opinion the one certain thing is that no court will ever make a ruling which impacts on the running of the current Rangers 'club', so there is zero chance of that in my view. Even going back to the delay in confirming liquidation by a judge allowed the very convenient cosy arrangement between the SFA and Charles Green's 'basket of assets' to take place with the minimum of fuss. The first two tax tribunals bought a significant amount of time and were also very handy for the SFA and the gerrymandered LNS decision. A major newspaper did all it could to help the 2nd tribunal by outing the judge as a Celtic fan before it started.
The general principle that we should all pay the right amount of tax, and that tax evasion is wrong goes out the window when it's Rangers under the spotlight. We should somehow all feel honoured they stole so much from the public purse. In David Murray's case journalists get tangled up in each others apron strings to see who can call him 'Sir' David the most. It's only close to a billion in unpaid debt a state owned bank let him off with so what's that between friends!
Allyjambo 9th September 2018 at 06:17
'…..but I continue to wonder if they may have recourse against Murray and the other signatories to their contracts ..'
___________________________
I would think that an action would lie against a Director who had acted deceitfully and in breach of his statutory duties as a Director by embroiling his employees in a tax fiddle with assurances that he would see them all right if the Taxmn subsequently came calling!
I might even suggest that the EBT recipients should get together to explore raising a joint action (possibly with the help of the PFA Scotland, if they are members) Stand up, Fraser Wishart!
Before the SFA makes the hugely significant decision about the future of our national stadium, it may want to consider;
1) Why did only 20K fans bother to turn up – if only to watch a very decent Belgium side?
&
2) With an ever dwindling support – and probably even lower attendances in the near future – is the SFA competent to take such an important decision which will have a long term impact on our Scottish game?
I know…
Following on from StevieBC@10.47 the BBC are trying to drum up support.
“Nations League: How Scotland could be just four wins from Euro 2020”
I personally think it’s disgusting and yet another reason I despise this SNP government
Darkbeforedawn 9th September 2018 at 11:34
_____________________________________________________________
I may have missed something dbd. Are you replying to someone here?
Darkbeforedawn
9th September 2018 at 11:34
===========================================
I don't have an issue with it.
Two of the most important things to me in a civilized society are universal access to health and education.
I believe what we have in Scotland is better than the rest of the UK in those areas. The best example being what it costs someone to go to University, fees, student loans etc.
jean7brodie 9th September 2018 at 12:19
"I may have missed something dbd. Are you replying to someone here?"
Jean see :-
Homunculus 8th September 2018 at 13:44
And
Homunculus 9th September 2018 at 12:28
Where he nails it in one:-
“I believe what we have in Scotland is better than the rest of the UK in those areas. The best example being what it costs someone to go to University, fees, student loans etc.”
Homunculus 9th September 2018 at 12:28
______________________________________________
Not to mention free prescriptions, free personal care and national bus travel for elderly, free of tolls on bridges, council tax freeze for 10 years etc etc