I've already posted why. You can lose a dispute with HMRC without being guilty of any wrong doing. I gave an example (IR35 - the pissy little tax case). No rules or regulations were broken yet HMRC went after tens of thousands of IT contractors and walloped many of them. In this example the HMRC's basis for going after them was nothing more than saying they didn't like them using existing corportate and tax law. In other words, they saw an opportunity to try to retrospectively wallop them over a 15+ year period. It was a money grab. It seems that they are now going after companies who operate or have operated EBT's. Why? I dunno. The reasons for them coming after Rangers will be what's getting argued at the tribunal I would imagine.
I'm sure he will I'ts a simple point, though. Losing a tax dispute does not automatically mean you did anything wrong. If you did nothing wrong, you didn't cheat. HMRC does not play by their own rules and is why they became known as the fearsome bogeyman.
it is a simple point. Losing a tax dispute does not mean you have done anything wrong. Nobody disagreed with that...ever. Losing this tax tribunal does mean Rangers have done something wrong, given the perameters of the tribunal. That is also a simple point. And an accurate one. No doubt when you realise that, you will pretend it was your position all along.
The result of the tribunal is not likely to be announced until after Easter so please carry on arguing
...and if lost? I've already given an example of how a tax case can be lost when no wrong doing occurred (IR35). Therefore, without the result of the tribunal to tell us how it was lost it cannot be said if Rangers cheated or not. For example, everything might be right and proper and within legislation, yet may be lost because HMRC has decided they now wish to interpret the rules differently (IR35 being a major example of that). In this example scenario, would that mean that Rangers cheated? I think not. It would mean they lost a tax dispute, nothing else.
You don't know the parameters of the tribunal. You already admitted you know nothing about the facts of it. Yet, after agreeing that losing the dispute does not mean any wrong doing Rangers somehow magically have? How can that remotely be construed as accurate? Desperation, more like. All you're left with is pathetic accusations of me changing my position
An idiot who changes his mind a lot. Gumbo, to aid your limited understanding of this case, perhaps you could take a look at the Murray interview from the other day. Go to about 3 minutes and listen for about 30 seconds. That should clear thingd up for you.
You don't know the parameters of the tribunal. You already admitted you know nothing about the facts of it. Yet, after agreeing that losing the dispute does not mean any wrong doing Rangers somehow magically have? How can that remotely be construed as accurate? Desperation, more like.
Is that all you have? Pathetic accusations of me changing my mind? It's all here on this thread. Show me.
What if I looked on another thread? Don't you think I would find some rather amusing contradictions if I looked elsewhere?
The tax case will determine whether the tax stragegy employed by Rangers was legal. I am glad I can help.
