Although, yes we have come a hell of a long way from Gumbo arguing that losing the case is just a debt to where we are now. How he did that without ever changing his mind is quite something.
"Nobody will be found guilty of anything. Illegality will be demonstrated in the form of tax evasion, not tax avoidance. " i absolutely understand that - however you should also grasp that even if tax evasion is "called" by the ftt it still does not make rangers guilty of breaking the law - only a subsequent civil case could do so - its a technicality yes but if i dont pay my visa bill, im not breaking the law until a ccj is awarded morally however..... which would not happen if rangers say - yeah ok no appeal we will pay - or in fact go "we cannae pay"
You are a buffoon. Rebel's arguement in a nutshell: "I don't know the facts of the tribunal. I don't know what points of legislation are in dispute. I do know that tax disputes can be lost even when no wrong doing has occurred. Therefore if Rangers lose they cheated." Untenable.
I think a criminal or civil case is unlikely. Gumbo now accepts that being found to have "flouted" the laws is tantamount to cheating. Given that this is what the FTT will report back on, it is not possible for them to rule in favour of Hector without Rangers having demonstrably evaded tax.
your post is fair - there is a bit of schrodingers cat in here as much as "have you broken the law until you are actually prosecuted" the term wrongdoing is a tricky one though because it does not always align with the law and for the record i agree - what we know about the case so far (and i accept gumbo its not exhaustive) would certainly indicate that the use of the EBT was incorrect - i.e. done (doing) incorrectly (wrongly) hence "wrong doing" if the ftt decides this and rangers dont appeal it then it is an admission - pure and simple
It is not possible for Rangers to lose the case unless they have been shown to have evaded tax. I'm sure you'll change your mind eventually.
In the well-publicised case of arse vs. mouth, the mouth was found guilty of felch-doing on more than one occasion. It was forced to pay all the jizz it had taken back to the arse even though the jizz authorities had retrospectively changed the rules around Employee Feltch Trusts. The mouth blamed an accountant in Guernsey but it still had to regurgitate gallon upon gallon of man-muck and was unable to field a decent tongue in it's feltch matches for the next three years.
"In the well-publicised case of arse vs. mouth, the mouth was found guilty of felch-doing on more than one occasion. It was forced to pay all the jizz it had taken back to the arse even though the jizz authorities had retrospectively changed the rules around Employee Feltch Trusts. The mouth blamed an accountant in Guernsey but it still had to regurgitate gallon upon gallon of man-muck and was unable to field a decent tongue in it's feltch matches for the next three years. " i remember this case - it really dragged on - from memory did the mouth not cease felching 5 years down the line having been unable to resolve jizz flow issues resulting from a lack of credit facility?
There were a few boring threads on forums about it for a while where the comedy factor of abstractly independent body parts pursuing each other through the courts for a remuneration of spunk paled into unfunnyness. The mouth got custody of the kids but it was paying out milky goo for many a year and it was severely uncompetetive - much lesser known and less historically felchy mouths stepped up and gobbled the arse's return dribblings with aplomb.
thats the case im thinking about despite protestations that the SFL (scottish felching league) could not survive without the mouth there remained competitive fixtures and voyuers actually increased in the long term
