"Rangers used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme for a period, the same scheme was legal and available to all other football clubs in the UK. Many other clubs including Celtic used the same aggressive tax avoidance for a period" This is lie, perpetrated by idiots.
What's a lie, Dev? Is this Celtic not using a tax avoidance scheme in the form of “Film investments”? please log in to view this image I wonder why Sutton and O'Neill were so quick out the blocks to cool any talk of title-stripping.
BOOOOOMMMMM! Your club has been found guilty of tax dodging. Celtic hasn't. If HMRC thought Celtic had illegally avoided paying taxes they would have pursued them through the courts. They have not. Your club cheated the tax man. Your club ended up in the hands of Craig Whyte because you cheated the tax man. Your club subsequently went down the ****ter. It was then re-born, zombie-like, and ended up in the giant haunds of Mr Green. Your current Chairman is a convvicted tax fraudster. Your new club is running out of money and is living on loan deals to see it through the season. Your club is rotten. An ugly, stinking abomination which should be dragged outside and shot in the head (it's the only way to kill a zombie apparently). How do you like dem apples?
"Many other clubs including Celtic used the same aggressive tax avoidance for a period" The key words here are "The same". As far as I am aware no one at Celtic received side letters/second contracts which is what would have made these schemes illegal. As for "some went down different routes of pointing their players and managers in the direction of another tax avoidance scheme in the form of “Film investments”. The clue is there if you care to look.
No they haven't. You have to break a law to be found guilty of something. Tax dodging is illegal. Rangers were using a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme as were Celtic.
It says they 'used the same aggressive tax avoidance'. It doesn't say they used the same aggresive tax avoidance scheme. Are you claiming that these dodgy film investments were not a tax avoidance scheme?
I'm claiming that no dual contracts were in place which assured these funds would be paid to the people concerned, thereby making them illegal. Tax avoidance is not a crime, Tax evasion is. Celtic and other institutions may well have used tax avoidance schemes, highly aggressive ones if that sounds better, but again, as far as I know, no one at Celtic has ever been accused of , or been found guilty of, tax evasion. So the schemes may be similar, they are by no means the same.
If you think that paying tax is the right thing do to then that's your prerogative. I'm a low tax advocate and see nothing wrong with trying to pay less tax. If you think that Rangers did wrong by facilitating a way for their employees to avoid paying tax, then that's your opinion and you're entitled to that. But if you think that Rangers cheated then you're completely wrong. Rangers didn't knowingly break any rules of the game, nor any laws of the land at the time so to retrospectively say that Rangers cheated would be wrong. Or to put it another way, if we were to go back in time and say that every time someone knowingly cheated we take away their prizes, therefore, we'll go back to the 1989 cup final where Roy Aitken took a throw-in even though he knew it was a Rangers throw-in which led to a Celtic goal or we could go back to the Lisbon Lizards finest hour as Bob Murdoch lashed the ball in from the edge of the box and a Celtic player was offside (Wallace?)... well it's just not right. Rangers have been absolutely gutted by this whole charade and it says all you need to know that even after getting liquidated, booted out the league, lose between £10m - £30m worth of players (estimate) and to be passed about like a scudbook between some of the most despicable charlatans ever to grace Scotch football for the past 5 years and people still want more blood from a battered and bruised RFC shows that Scottish football is diseased and corrupt to its core. The tsunami is coming and I hope it flushes every last morsel of scum from the game here if it's ever going to get back to a level of respectability and dignity that only Rangers can provide. GSTQ
Jolyon Maugham is a Sunderland Fan and a QC specialising in Tax. He has written the following articles following the Court of Session decision in the Rangers 'Big Tax' Case. Jolyon Maugham - On EBTs and Rangers FC – Part 1 Jolyon Maugham - On EBTs and Rangers FC – Part 2 Jolyon Maugham - On EBTs and Rangers – Part 3
See to be honest it's only such a big deal because it's football and Old Firm in particular. Was a sporting advantage gained? Well maybe but as Lochrie said so is claiming a throw in that you know wasn't yours or Deliberately handling the ball a la Henry against Ireland. Every **** wants to pay less tax, from Taxi drivers using Provo desiel to multi millionaire footballers or their club. Minty gambled and called it wrong which he seems to have done a lot if you look at his other companies which are down the ****ter. Stripping titles shouldn't happen, I honestly don't think it can be classed as deliberate cheating, I actually think that's crazy talk. Look at the list of Celtic players, and a lot of others, using bogus film companies to pay less tax. What's the difference? I do think that Rangers have suffered enough, a football club is its fans, who are mostly working class yet we have people wanting that football club dead. Huns may be huns but I've seen left leaning Celtic fans who would be happy for working class people to lose their football club, something passed through generations. For what? Trying to give those ****s at HMRC less money. HMRC are parasites. It just doesn't sit right and from a football point of view it is counter productive. Who wants to watch a one horse league? Why would I spend a lot of dough travelling over to watch what is basically exhibition matches. I dont any more and there's plenty like me. The Scottish media have a lot to answer for in all this too, in one column they'd be tut tutting about Old firm bitterness then in the next they'd be stirring it up. Another set of parasites.
There is nothing in the new outcome that states beyond a doubt that Rangers gained an advantage, just judge's opinions, and opinions are not strong enough evidence to strip titles or trophies, and that is what will be decided in the end.
Jolyon Maugham has consistently said that what is in dispute is the amount of tax that is due. This amount will depend on how the monies paid into the EBT scheme are defined ... as income or as loans, to which the appropriate tax regime will then be applied. It amazes me that folks are still complaining that Rangers retained more of their money by avoiding tax ... what else is a tax avoidance scheme for if not for that ? I wonder how many folks who are complaining about Rangers have themselves avoided tax ? Anyone would think that EBTs were for the exclusive use of Rangers and Rangers alone ! Turning to Mike Ashley, I think he will launch a two-pronged attack. Ashley is challenging the SFA's verdict on Dave King being a 'fit and proper person'. Skysports - Mike Ashley has challenged the SFA over its approval of Dave King The other prong will be on the resolution before the AGM to stop persons with dual interests (in football clubs) voting on matters affecting Rangers. This resolution has been proposed to bring Rangers' rules into line with those of the SFA on dual ownership and to prevent any further fines from the SFA in this matter. However, as a shareholder Ashley has his rights and I would think those rights under Law would trump any SFA rules or resolution that restricted his rights as a shareholder. So, if Ashley cannot get the SFA's ruling on Dave King reversed, he still has another string to his bow, with which I think he would win, whether he challenges the SFA, Rangers, or both.
