Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Be very surprised if King went near a jail this being a civil case. Also be very surprised if Kngs lawyers had not told him exactly what he could and could not say in his statement

Looks like more bad news

HMRC wins Rangers tax case appeal

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has won a ruling that Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) was illegal.
Rangers used the scheme from 2001 until 2010 to give millions of pounds of tax-free loans to players and other staff.
In what became known as the "big tax case", HMRC claimed these were salary payments and subject to tax.
HMRC lost its appeals at tax tribunals in 2012 and 2014. Now three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh have upheld their appeal.
The appeal was heard by Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young.
The judges ruled that if income was derived from an employee's services, in their capacity as an employee, it was an emolument or earnings and "thus assessable to income tax".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34720850

citytillidie wrote: »

Looks like more bad news

HMRC wins Rangers tax case appeal

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has won a ruling that Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) was illegal.
Rangers used the scheme from 2001 until 2010 to give millions of pounds of tax-free loans to players and other staff.
In what became known as the "big tax case", HMRC claimed these were salary payments and subject to tax.
HMRC lost its appeals at tax tribunals in 2012 and 2014. Now three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh have upheld their appeal.
The appeal was heard by Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young.
The judges ruled that if income was derived from an employee's services, in their capacity as an employee, it was an emolument or earnings and "thus assessable to income tax".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34720850

I reckon Murray will appeal so it may not be over yet he will use judicial predecent as his defence.

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

So what/how much is Rangers liability after that then?

In the big scheme of things it doesn't mean much, just that if they want to pursue it we're back at square 1. Given that the club is now run by another company there won't be ramifications I think, just to OldCo which is basically worthless.

As for the usual title stripping claims, that won't happen. Lord Nimmo Smith decided there was no sporting advantage regardless of the legality of the scheme.

What I still don't understand is how HMRC can move the goalposts since it was well established that the scheme, when it was used, was legal. Once the loophole was closed the scheme was no longer in use. Nor why they pursue something for which they can gain nothing, as I mentioned above that any claims will be for the OldCo, which is worthless.

edit: BBE, I don't think Murray will be involved at all, he doesn't want to get the spotlight on himself.
MIH would be liable but they're in liquidation I believe ?

bobbysands81 wrote: »

If it has no bearing then why did Rangers fight it?

If it has no bearing then surely there'll be no appeal?

Financial doping at its worst. You cheated to gain sporting advantage.

Lord Nimmo Smith disagrees with you. No sporting advantage regardless of the legality of the scheme.

Not that it will matter of course, I suspect we'll be seeing more of you than normal in this thread

And Rangers didn't fight it anymore, it was HMRC who kept appealing.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Lord Nimmo Smith disagrees with you. No sporting advantage regardless of the legality of the scheme.

Not that it will matter of course, I suspect we'll be seeing more of you than normal in this thread

And Rangers didn't fight it anymore, it was HMRC who kept appealing.

LNS found you guilty of EBTs already.

Rangers DID fight this.

The new ruling clearly shows there was an advantage as players would have gone elsewhere such is the huge bump in remuneration.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

LNS found you guilty of EBTs already.

Rangers DID fight this.

The new ruling clearly shows there was an advantage as players would have gone elsewhere such is the huge bump in remuneration.

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Rangers were found guilty by LNS of administrative errors and were fined for it, not for using the scheme itself.

Seems to me you're just projecting your own wishes on this entire case, it's not really a surprise but it does invalidate your entire argument.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Of course there was a sporting advantage. In my view, titles should be stripped or the current incarnation of Rangers simply can't claim to be the same club as the pre 2012 outfit. They will try to have it both ways of course, but those titles are tainted.

Shocking.

Won't happen though.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

You do realise that today's judgement has overturned what Nimmo Smith found? His judgement is no longer valid.

You're guilty, you gained sporting advantage.

Eh no it doesn't think you will find that is s totally different matter but you carry on

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Won't happen though.

You could be right that it won't happen, but it should happen and if ye had any dignity you'd accept that.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Nimmo Smith said Rangers gained no sporting advantage because they merely took advantage of a loophole that existed in a context that he outlined, a loophole that others could've taken advantage of but didn't. However the appeal has been overturned, so the context has changed.

No not so he said no sporting advantage had taken place on the field of play unless there's another commission to overturn that which I very much doubt. Then the judgement stays

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

You had players on your books that you couldn't afford. Chances are likely that offered less money they would have played elsewhere.
How does that not constitute an unfair advantage?

More proof, not that it was needed, that the titles and cups the first version of your club won while using the scheme are tainted.

5* Stars

* = Sssshhhhh!

The players were still paid, right ? The money had to come from somewhere, right ?

The players were perfectly affordable.

Not that it matters, I'm sure this thread will be great fun for the next week or so with 'Thanks' for each other posts all round

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Think people are clutching at straws expecting any league to strip clubs of titles. Out of interest has it happened much in World Football, have clubs been stripped of titles?

Marseille, but that was different. They attempted to bribe Valenciennes players to lose their game against them, so they would win the league earlier giving them more time to prepare for their Champions League final in 1993.

edit: And Juventus of course, can't believe I forgot that.

But in general it hardly ever happens, mostly it's demotion or fines.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The players were still paid, right ? The money had to come from somewhere, right ?

The players were perfectly affordable.

Not that it matters, I'm sure this thread will be great fun for the next week or so with 'Thanks' for each other posts all round

They were paid far more than you were able to afford.

Are you seriously trying to argue against this point???