Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by Jm15.
long (very long) time lurker. Decided to register on the back of the suggestion by others that those that run (?) our game need to understand the depth and breadth of the anger that is felt about where our game has ended up.
So, here I am and what do I have to say? Apart from asking that the good, nay, incredible work done by many posters on this blog, ( truly fantastic), continues. I ask that we (I know I’m new as a registered member, but I do feel part of the community of right thinking football fans which includes those that inhabit this blog), focus on the facts. Players were not registered correctly, deliberately or not (ha). The consequence of this fact is that rules were broken and the result of the games that these players played in should be voided and a 0.3 result recorded. According to the rules. The outcome should therefore be whatever it is, according to the rules, no wriggle room. The spirit of the rules and the intention of the rules should be applied, without fear nor favour. Especially fear.
Can or should this retrospective action be taken? Once a decision is taken, it can’t be reviewed or reconsidered in light of new evidence? Those of a legal persuasion will confirm that the ‘Double Jeopardy’ legal principal no longer applies. And, without in any way wishing to compare the ‘Rangers’ situation to any specific case, (there have been cases; I though about naming a particular case, but thought better of it) where new evidence was brought to light and was considered, this has happened, and there have been new, different outcomes, based on new evidence and new understanding of facts.
my tuppencworth anyway. I’ll leave it at that for the moment but I’ll proffer thanks to the mods, generally, for managing a brilliant forum, but also for helping a somewhat technologically challenged geezer join the debate
History, Neighbours and Made Up News
Long time away, got scunnerd, but contstant lurker. However, last weekend’s events have caused me to engage again. Disgraceful behaviour from both sets of fans of the current Glasgow ‘Giants’. Effigies, vandalism, bigotry, sectarianism, hatred and bile. All wanted and lapped up by the SMSM. Don’t tell me that English Et al, didn’t want this to happen. It pays their wages. In fact, i would ‘posit’ ( aye , have been lurking elsewhere, and he/ she is a fascinating read), that this is what they wanted all along, faux outrage, papers for sale. I get caught up in it, we all do. For the record, I am an Edinburgh boy, a Jambo, Catholic, slightly lapsed, and still cannot get my head round the world that you, through there in Glasgow inhabit. It’s not like that through here. I assure you. Oh oh oh. I hoped we might move on. Lies from the governors of our game, deflections from the supporters organisations(proper response from the Forrest fellae today, but whataboutery still there), quite remarkable response from the ‘owners’, 1872, of the new club inhabiting ibrox ( sorry, but nails firmly hammered to the mast), and the ‘clubs’ response quite breathtaking. But let me be clear, the whataboutery from the Other club is equally disingenuous. See the state of tynecastle after Celtic visit, regularly toilets trashed, food outlets, stewards attacked and vandalised. I would quite happily accept the both of youse going away elsewhere. Neither of youse (using the vernacular here) are helpful or have any wish but to do anything other than attack each other. All other clubs are just cannon fodder for your interminable battle.
Right, taking a deep breath and going to retry the recent Minfulness Training I was on.
Might be back.
Look Back to Look Forward
This popped up in my inbox today. Thought it might interest some of us.
UBS V HMRC – TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEME REJECTED BY SUPREME COURT
In this week’s budget, Chancellor George Osborne announced that he intends to introduce measures to close tax loopholes for companies, making it harder for them to avoid paying tax in the UK. Just a week before the budget, the Supreme Court issued its decision in a long running case about the validity of schemes set up by investment banks designed to avoid bankers paying income tax on their bonuses. It did not go well for the banks.
‘In our society, a great deal of intellectual effort is devoted to tax avoidance,’ said Supreme Court Justice, Lord Reed, at the start of his judgment, ‘the most sophisticated attempts of the Houdini taxpayer to escape from the manacles of tax….include elements which have been inserted without any business or commercial purpose…’ Unfortunately for the banks, his lordship went on to say that tax avoidance schemes that lack commercial purpose will not be protected even if they meet the strict letter of the tax legislation, thereby slamming shut the door on schemes which have ‘no commercial rationale beyond tax avoidance.’
Collectively UBS and Deutsche Bank had a bonus fund of £182 million which was payable to their respective employees. But payment of the bonuses by means of salary would have given rise to large income tax liabilities. The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 provides income tax exemptions for certain types of shares known as ‘employment related restricted securities’. That, as the catchy name suggests, is a share awarded to an employee which has to be forfeited if, for example, the employee fails to meet future performance targets. Dismissal for misconduct may be one ground for forfeiture.
Since at the time of the share award there is no guarantee that employees will receive the benefit of the shares (since they might have to be forfeited) it would be unfair for employees to be taxed on the value of such shares at the time of the share award. The 2003 Act therefore provides that no income tax is chargeable then; it is chargeable later on. This made sense to Lord Reed. It was clear to his lordship that the purposes of the restricted security exemption in the 2003 Act were to protect employees who receive shares conditional on future events, and to encourage employee participation in share schemes, but only in ways that did not diminish tax receipts for HMRC in the event the shares were not later forfeited. It is in respect of those purposes that the banks’ schemes had to be judged.
As it then stood (it has since been amended to remove the loophole), the 2003 Act exempted certain types of employment related restricted securities from the payment of income tax altogether – both when the shares were awarded and later on.
To make use of this exemption, the banks incorporated companies in Jersey and the Cayman Islands; created a special class of share in them (the restricted securities), purchased the shares with the bonus funds and allocated the beneficial interest in the shares to the employees, with the employees having the right to redeem the shares later on. No liability for income tax arose and, providing the employee waited long enough, the structure was also capital gains tax efficient. On paper, the schemes worked.
The problem, however, was that the schemes looked artificial to the Supreme Court because there was no realistic prospect of the shares ever being forfeited. The key element of a ‘restricted security’, namely the risk of forfeiture, simply wasn’t there. As the bonuses had actually been earned and awarded, it was not in the interests of the banks or their employees to see forfeiture happen. Unsurprisingly, the forfeiture provisions in the schemes were drafted so that the chances of forfeiture were extremely remote.
In the Deutsche Bank scheme, the shares were forfeited only if the employee resigned his or her employment within 8 weeks. Dismissal by Deutsche Bank, even on cause shown, was not a ground of forfeiture. Redundancy, death or disability also had no impact. The matter of forfeiture was therefore within the sole control of the employee.
In the UBS case, forfeiture was conditional on the value of the FTSE 100 index reaching a certain pre-defined level at the end of a three week period. Aside from being an arbitrary event that was highly unlikely to occur, UBS also hedged against the risk by obtaining insurance which would have paid out sums equivalent to the bonuses in the event the shares were forfeited.
Accordingly, the chances of either UBS or Deutsche Bank employees forfeiting bonuses, and suffering any losses, were remote. As a result, the court held that there were no ‘restricted securities’ because there were truly no contingencies – the shares were always going to be retained and the employees were always going to receive their bonuses – and thus the exemption could not apply. The court held that income tax was chargeable on the value of the shares at the time that they were awarded.
Although each case must of course be decided on its own facts, Lord Reed’s judgment (which was unanimously approved by all five justices) appears to lay down a marker for future cases. We can expect to see tax avoidance schemes more routinely unpicked by the courts. As Lord Reed put it:
‘There is nothing in the background to suggest that Parliament intended that [the exemption] in section 423 (2) [of the 2003 Act] should apply to transactions having no connection to the real world of business, where a restrictive condition was deliberately contrived with no business or commercial purpose but solely in order to take advantage of the exemption.’
There are further big tax cases coming up, most notably the liquidators of Rangers FC’s attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to accept the validity of the Employment Benefits Trusts (EBTs) the club used to pay some of its high profile players from 2001 – 2010. Watch this space.
Sorry, should have credited this. Blog by Steven Guild, solicitor Advocate with Burness Paull
John Clark Meets “The SFA”
I am gutted, I really am. I have been a ‘pledger’, almost since day dot re my teams travails, and, for me, this was a way someone who couldn’t make the commitment of buying a season ticket, (purely for family/work commitments) could demonstrate a way of personally demonstrating my commitment to my club, and by definition, my commitment to Scottish fitba. 20 Quid a month. My club was saved from extinction, oh yeah, let’s get technical, liquidation, by our fans determination to do the ‘ right thing’, acknowledge our failings, take on the chin our mistakes, but do the right thing.
apparently, now, all we have to wait for is for ‘other’ fans walking away, that will then determine whether or not what has gone before is right or wrong. Oh., oh oh. I am genuinely upset. I will write to my club, with not a threat to withdraw my (financial) support, but rather with a question; ‘ why should I bother,?
LNS – A Summary
Just for clarity, was he (warned) before or after he spoke to the press?
LNS – A Summary
was surfing and found this. Forgive me if this develops the argument somewhere else, but it struck with me.
out I say!