Jesus. Checking out Rangers forums.
Isn't it funny that this is the first time in years that you'll have won the league and you're more interested in Rangers.
Steptoe;
Hates Rangers.
Kinda likes Celtic.
Orange Tops
- Thread starter Mind The Duck
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Jesus. Checking out Rangers forums.
Isn't it funny that this is the first time in years that you'll have won the league and you're more interested in Rangers.
Steptoe;
Hates Rangers.
Kinda likes Celtic.
So its different because we are a bigger club therefor require more money?
You speak some amount of ****e you fenian ****.
Possibly. But that doesn't mean cheating. It just means the powers that be, including the tax man, have decided to clamp down on a perfectly legal tax structure. Nothing more.
Medro Pendes:2377199 said:
Jesus. Checking out Rangers forums.
Isn't it funny that this is the first time in years that you'll have won the league and you're more interested in Rangers.
Steptoe;
Hates Rangers.
Kinda likes Celtic.
I can go on most boards because, unlike some, I don't get banned
Beelin'
Both sets of fans have been asked to back their clubs , Celtic most sucessful share issue in the history of British football , Rangers, well poor Mr Murray had to under write 50 million .Why do you keep stating Celtic fans hate Rangers more than they like their own club???
Magic Laudrup 11:2377359 said:
There won't be a rangers board by then
A man is receiving JSA. But he is doing the double.
If the authorities catch up to him, do you consider that to mean that the job centre is clamping down on a perfectly legal benefit structure?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213
Barclays Bank told by Treasury to pay £500m avoided tax
Barclays was accused by HM Revenue and Customs of designing and using two schemes that were intended to avoid substantial amounts of tax. The government has taken the unusual step of introducing retrospective legislation to end such "aggressive tax avoidance" by financial institutions. Tax rules forced the bank to tell the authorities about its plans. The government has closed the schemes to retrieve £500m of lost tax and safeguard payments of billions of more tax in the future.
BBC business editor Robert Peston has been told by Barclays that it is surprised by HMRC's reaction to the two schemes, which it believed to be in line with those used by other banks. Our business editor says it is highly embarrassing for Barclays, because Britain's big banks have all signed a code committing them not to engage in tax avoidance.
However, he adds that Barclays may end up paying no more than £150m of additional tax.
Announcing the crackdown, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, said the bank should never have devised the schemes in the first place.
"The bank that disclosed these schemes to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has adopted the Banking Code of Practice on Taxation which contains a commitment not to engage in tax avoidance," he said.
"The government is clear that these are not transactions that a bank that has adopted the code should be undertaking. "We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."
One tax scheme involved Barclays claiming it should not have to pay corporation tax on profits made when buying back its own IOUs. The second tax avoidance scheme, also designed by Barclays, involved investment funds claiming that non-taxable income entitled the funds to tax credits that could be reclaimed from HMRC. The Treasury described this as "an attempt to secure 'repayment' from the Exchequer of tax that has not been paid".
Barclays Bank told by Treasury to pay £500m avoided tax
Barclays was accused by HM Revenue and Customs of designing and using two schemes that were intended to avoid substantial amounts of tax. The government has taken the unusual step of introducing retrospective legislation to end such "aggressive tax avoidance" by financial institutions. Tax rules forced the bank to tell the authorities about its plans. The government has closed the schemes to retrieve £500m of lost tax and safeguard payments of billions of more tax in the future.
BBC business editor Robert Peston has been told by Barclays that it is surprised by HMRC's reaction to the two schemes, which it believed to be in line with those used by other banks. Our business editor says it is highly embarrassing for Barclays, because Britain's big banks have all signed a code committing them not to engage in tax avoidance.
However, he adds that Barclays may end up paying no more than £150m of additional tax.
Announcing the crackdown, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, said the bank should never have devised the schemes in the first place.
"The bank that disclosed these schemes to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has adopted the Banking Code of Practice on Taxation which contains a commitment not to engage in tax avoidance," he said.
"The government is clear that these are not transactions that a bank that has adopted the code should be undertaking. "We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."
One tax scheme involved Barclays claiming it should not have to pay corporation tax on profits made when buying back its own IOUs. The second tax avoidance scheme, also designed by Barclays, involved investment funds claiming that non-taxable income entitled the funds to tax credits that could be reclaimed from HMRC. The Treasury described this as "an attempt to secure 'repayment' from the Exchequer of tax that has not been paid".
Oooft. Retrospective legislation - that's a killer. Change the rules of the game after it's been played. Now that is cheating.
As RB alluded to it's not the "retrospective" legislation which Rangers have been hit with. The rules on EBTs were clear, as long as ANY payments through the EBT to an employee were not "Guaranteed" and not made as a renumeration for services rendered, then it was perfectly valid. Rangers made it clear from the beginning (by writing the contracts promising the cash) that it was simply a tax avoidance scheme.
Rangers never at any time stuck to the rules and that is why they face a punishment.
I merely posted the link to this Barclay's story to show that Rangers are certainly not being singled out nor are they unique in having the Taxman breathing down their necks for shady practices.
Rangers never at any time stuck to the rules and that is why they face a punishment.
I merely posted the link to this Barclay's story to show that Rangers are certainly not being singled out nor are they unique in having the Taxman breathing down their necks for shady practices.
I know that the Barclays thing has nothing to do with EBT's
As for the EBT's it's up to the tribunal to sort out that tax dispute.
Thats fantastic for you.
You could go on to the dozens of Celtic fansites but you decide to go on to rangers media.
Steptoe;
Hates Rangers.
Kinda likes Celtic.
Because he ALWAYS comments on the Rangers board about Rangers and NEVER about Celtic.
Orange Tops
Rob from the poor
Help needed
2nd place up for grabs
Gordon Smith
The Second Contract?
Bnp
Robert of Florence
Kyle Bartley
McCoist
Mick I could kiss you....
McCoist assaults Aluko
You get the point. Slightly obsessed with the Champions.
