Sometimes laughter is the best medicine

^^^

Has a C.S.E. in English.

 

please log in to view this image

 

It was "Utter" Domination though. Makes you wonder how Hibs scored if they never had the ball.

 

Am I a Mug for reading things that make me laugh?

 

You're reading the Record and you're reading the thoughts of a blogger who blogs about a team who you don't support.

Your the mug bud

​

 

Does it make you laugh to hear someone talk positively about his team?

Is it an unfamiliar concept to you?

I know it's hard for you to grasp with the likes of Cifti & Ambrose cutting about lennoxtown

 

*You're

 

In the bageth ye shall popeth

 

**** sake Mindy

Trust you to be caught by the oldest trick in the book.

 

He's not talking positively about his team, he's making them out to be the Scottish version of Barcelona and Real Madrid rolled into one. I think that's an opinion that begs to be mocked, hence my comments.

See above.

 

You mutha fukkaeth

 

.

 

Rangers bloggers are fun to read. Half of them are delusional ****wits. The rest are simply ****wits.

 

Mind E. Coyote

 

"That Rangers blogger's statements seem pretty reasonable to me"

John Collins.

 

please log in to view this image

 

HMRC win appeal

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7


Next »
“Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere. We realise that the fifth respondent [RFC 2012] was in, potentially, a difficult financial position, competing for good players in an international market where other countries may not have the same rigorous approach to taxation as the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the law is clear: the payments made in respect of footballers were in our view derived from their employment and thus the payments were emoluments or earnings.

cheating hun bastards

 

That link says judgement @ 12 noon

 

Here is another

HM Revenue and Customs have won their appeal against the Rangers Tax Case verdict, with the Court of Session ruling offshore payments to players should be subject to income tax.

The tax man had previously failed in two attempts to prove the use of Employee Benefit Trusts to provide cash loans to employees of the Rangers oldco did not amount to contractual earnings.

Rangers, along with other companies under the umbrella of Murray Group Holdings, used the scheme between 2001 and 2009.

In court, HMRC argued the payments had technically been "earned" by employees, as they were made as consideration for their services.

The scheme, it was claimed, was “a mere redirection of earnings which did not remove the liability of employees to income tax".

HMRC's appeal was allowed on those grounds, with the court agreeing their argument was correct.

In his verdict, Lord Drummond Young said: “It seems to us to be self-evident that the obligations in the side-letter were part of the employee’s employment package, and provided him with additional remuneration.

"They were negotiated as part of the total employment package. Once it is accepted that the bonus payments represented consideration for a footballer’s services qua employee, it inevitably follows that those payments represented emoluments or earnings of the footballer in question.

"On the foregoing basis, we are of opinion that the sums received by the trustee of the Principal Trust and in due course by the trustees of the sub-trusts amounted to a mere redirection of income and thus constituted emoluments or earnings of the employees in question,"

“That accords with common sense. If the law were otherwise, an employee could readily avoid tax by redirecting income to members of his family to meet outgoings that he would normally pay: for example to a trust for his wife...or to trustees to pay for his children’s education or the outgoings on the family home.

"The funds are ultimately derived as consideration for the employee’s services, and on that basis they are properly to be considered emoluments or earnings.

 

Wonder how much public money was spent on this.

And for what?