A point I agree with? Since when? Since you clumsily and inaccurately misinterpreted my posts? As for trawling.... Hardly. They were all in one thread. If i really troubled myself, i'm sure there is more evidence of you changing your mind. But given the wealth of evidence already here, it is probably not worth my while.
You agreed with it on this very thread. So... You admit to knowing nothing about the case yet while agreeing that the tax case can be lost without any wrong doing having occurred you still have Rangers guilty. That just doesn't add up. You have no tenable position.
I don't agree that Rangers can lose and there be no evidence of wrongdoing. Given that you accept the tribunal will rule on the legality of Rangers application of the scheme, this is obvious. That is my argument. If you misunderstood that, then I am willing to accept your apology. I don't know the facts of the case. That is completely irrelevant to the argument I have made.
Thought I'd help refresh your memory. This thread, posts #208, #213, #215 Your position is untenable.
So you agree that tax cases can be lost when no wrong doing occurs. Except when it's Rangers, obviously. The tribunal will rule on the points of legislation in dispute, including legality, obviously. Without knowing the "irrelavent" facts of the dispute you know **** all about what is being actually disputed/argued. Yet you have Rangers guilty. Your position is untenable.
I prefer to leave the quotes in context where they belong. However when I asked if you really believed that anybody who ever lost a tax dispute was guilty of wrong doing you said...
For a start, I don't have Rangers guilty. Second off, if all tax cases were there to argue the exact same point, then perhaps you might have a case. However, THIS tribunal will estsblish the legality of Rangers tax strategy ergo, losing means they have acted illegally. This is a fact. An indesputable fact. Yet here we are, 14 pages of you demonstrably flip flopping and presenting no argument to counter that. If you can, please go ahead.
So i don't believe that everyone who has lost a tax case is automatically guilty of wrongdoing. What is your point?
...that doesn't even make sense. ...you admit you don't know the facts of the case so that "indesputable fact" is untenable. .[/QUOTE] Example: The EBT implementation may be perfectly legal, yet the case may be lost because HMRC has decided to re-interpret it's own rules after the fact and go after companies who operate EBT's. HMRC does that kind of thing, you know. (IR35) So, it is possible (and you agreed - unless you're about to flip flop on that) to lose a dispue without doing anything wrong. Without knowing the "irrelevant" facts of the dispute we can't know. You position is untenable.
I have never, ever said that every person who loses a tax case is a cheat. I have said that Rangers losing this case makes them cheats. Why are you struggling with this?
2 things here - 1st is IM BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BBC 606 LOYAL YA BASS! 2nd is that you 2 really are just arguing about semantics and the term "guilty". Rangers can be found to have broken the rules without being guilty of a crime - it really is as simple as that. Not everyone who is hauled up for tax avoidance is guilty of "breaking the law" - they are guilty of breaking HMRC rules - even, im afraid, if these rules are retrospectively applied (which i might add is not HMRC's position in this case as far as we are aware). The FTT is not a civil case against rangers (to my understanding) - the case would subsequently call if rangers lost the FTT and then refused to pay - to be honest that wont happen anyway as 1. sheriff says that the bones of this have already been picked dry and you are guilty and 2. rangers dont want it to drag. your definition of wrongdoing is so subjective that in this case you are both right - just approaching it from different angles
Example: The EBT implementation may be perfectly legal, yet the case may be lost because HMRC has decided to re-interpret it's own rules after the fact and go after companies who operate EBT's. HMRC does that kind of thing, you know. (IR35) So, it is possible (and you agreed - unless you're about to flip flop on that) to lose a dispue without doing anything wrong. Without knowing the "irrelevant" facts of the dispute we can't know. You position is untenable.[/QUOTE] You are borderline ******ed. You accept that this tribunal will rule on the legality of the way in which rangers have implemented the scheme. If Rangers have implemented the scheme correctly, they will not lose the case. There is no scenario by which HMRC can win unless Rangers have abused the scheme. There is an existing precedent that has already ruled on the correct use of the scheme. As this is a demonstrable fact, it blows your argument clean out of the water.... But for some reason you refuse to see this.
You are borderline ******ed. You accept that this tribunal will rule on the legality of the way in which rangers have implemented the scheme. If Rangers have implemented the scheme correctly, they will not lose the case. There is no scenario by which HMRC can win unless Rangers have abused the scheme. There is an existing precedent that has already ruled on the correct use of the scheme. As this is a demonstrable fact, it blows your argument clean out of the water.... But for some reason you refuse to see this.[/QUOTE] ...and you can lose the case without having done anything wrong. Ergo, no cheating. Simple.
Nobody will be found guilty of anything. Illegality will be demonstrated in the form of tax evasion, not tax avoidance.
