I'm in for awaiting the result, no matter what it is. We're not all as rabid as you are. You should remember that.
You are the only person on here incapable or unwilling to understand the ramifications of the first tier tribunal. Me being rabid or not is not going to change the fact that losing this case means that Rangers have cheated. Using emotive language about my disposition isn't going to change the fact that losing this case means that Rangers have cheated. Me willing Rangers to have cheated isn't going to change the fact that losing this case means that Rangerd have cheated. I find your naivete on the matter quite astounding and your belligerence on it rather amusing. Like i say, I am an idiot, but I am right.
Then it's one level of beel up to mashing the keyboard with ma forehead... , bhjvgoyjvt uo to86 ro76r hklg 'ovkgvbvysasrtdiyfytyfyitfvyt f6 uoyg[iojnpo[pmo[,]pounibpigu vyt <ouch>
The way I see it HMRC are Judge Jury and executioner when it comes to Tax matters. They like the FSA are legally empowered by the Government and the Law to tell people/companies that they owe money as they have done with Rangers. They have found Rangers "Guilty" and now Rangers have appealed. If this was a court of Law then Rangers would already be in jail (or at best out on bail) because they have been found guilty. It is now up to Rangers to prove they are innocent and until such a time as they do (which of course may be never) then at this moment in time it is safe to say that they have "cheated".
Fair point if Rangers were secretive about using EBT's. They weren't. They showed them in the accounts every single year they were used. The accounts were audited by Grant Thornton. Are you going to claim they are crooked, etc? Celtic would have looked at Rangers accounts for the years 2000-2010 when they were published. Why didn't they claim the EBT's (that were clearly shown on accounts) were illegal and 'cheating' then?
I find your inability to understand equally amusing. Naivete and belligerence? Because I disgree with your groundless stance and choose to await the outcome of the tribunal? But, you are right because you say so. Of course you are. You best alert the tax lawyers. They need your insight.
Losing the dispute does not mean they cheated. It means a tax dispute was lost. If they lose and can be shown to have deliberately flouted tax law then that is cheating. Otherwise, they lost a dispute because they lost an arguement with HMRC. No more. No less. Happens all the time.
Aye Gambol and if I'm found guilty of assault I am not really a criminal I just lost an argument with the jury.
Groundless? go on? You see I would think that misapplying a scheme despite the rules being abundantly clear to everyone else are fairly solid grounds. Dont take my word for it. Ask Hugh Adam.
It's not a criminal case. It's a tribunal to sort out an argument over the points of tax legislation. If tax law is shown to be broken, it becomes fraud, and then becomes a criminal case. It's really not that difficult to understand. But it seems many don't want to.
Groundless because, unlike those dealing with the dispute, you don't know the material facts of how the EBT's were implemented. Have a go at being a fair minded individual and await the outcome. Hugh Adam? EBT's were no secret.
When you have no real counter to a reasonable argument it's always safer just to resort to frankly infantile insults and name calling. I must admit it's not really a surprise when it comes from you.
