The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jokester said:
EBT's were never legal to use as a method of payment.
Click to expand...

I'd say the highly paid tax advisors advising MIH at the time would know a damn sight more about their legality than you or I. If it was as cut and dry as you seem to believe, why would it have involved a tribunal process that has lasted for close to 2 years? :rolleyes:
 
Jokester said:
Using EBT to pay people were never ever legal. Let's cut the **** about this, using EBTs to pay people without being done for tax evasion relied entirely on them lying to HMRC as to the nature of the payment and HMRC not being able to prove it. The loophole that HMRC closed was the means of them getting away with it.
Click to expand...

Done for tax avoidance eh? How does that work then?
 
You are obviously aware steve that other clubs such as Celtic, who used an EBT with Juninho, had someone look at it and pay the tax on it, citing that it was an obvious tax dodge.
 
steve1873 said:
I'd say the highly paid tax advisors advising MIH at the time would know a damn sight more about their legality than you or I. If it was as cut and dry as you seem to believe, why would it have involved a tribunal process that has lasted for close to 2 years? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I know somebody that still uses an EBT to get paid, though he now has to do it via an offshore company to remain "legal". Let's be clear about this they know full well that it wasn't a loan that they were receiving at the time they receive it and it was entirely reliant on there being no paperwork saying that was in fact a permanent payment that would never be called in.

It all comes down to what HMRC can prove, everyone knows what went on, but without documentary evidence HMRC couldn't do anything about it.
 
The funny thing about the paperwork, there was memos saying to shred the original EBT documents but no memo to say to shred the memo that was sent to remind them to shred the documents :D
 
Guess the main problem with that is that they were never caught, as infamous as it always was, i think it was probably pretty common place in all football grounds when turnstiles were the norm, but yeah, the attendances were always pretty suspect.
 
No, of course its not okay, but I dare say all clubs used to do it to some extend, Celtic, Rangers and every other club in Scotland.

In any cash business its obviously tough to prove, its why gangsters buy tanning salons and things like that, its easy to hide cash or launder it.
 
steve1873 said:
10 odd years of tax avoidance??? You meant the tax avoidance that was, at the time perfectly legal and done based on the advice of professional tax advisors? That tax avoidance? As you may be aware EBT's were a perfectly legal loophole up until 2010. This loophole was closed and HMRC decided to retrospectively claim monies they feel are owed. I'd say getting hit with a potential £75 million liability is punishment enough, no?
Click to expand...

steve1873 said:
So tax dodging is ok as long as you don't get caught then?
Click to expand...

?

Loophole closed and retrospective punishment dished out because they exploited a loophole that gave them an unfair advantage financially in a sport that is quite heavily dominated by finance.

Oh and 75m liability is not punishment enough, the club should be wound up and kicked out the league, it's records during the time the HMRC are claiming for money gained through the loop hole should be wiped from footballing history. Why? Because many other clubs go out of business over much smaller amounts of money but still play by the rules. Rangers cannot be given a light punishment compared to all the clubs that have been forced out of business for a lot less.
 
pingwing said:
?

Loophole closed and retrospective punishment dished out because they exploited a loophole that gave them an unfair advantage financially in a sport that is quite heavily dominated by finance.

Oh and 75m liability is not punishment enough, the club should be wound up and kicked out the league, it's records during the time the HMRC are claiming for money gained through the loop hole should be wiped from footballing history. Why? Because many other clubs go out of business over much smaller amounts of money but still play by the rules. Rangers cannot be given a light punishment compared to all the clubs that have been forced out of business for a lot less.
Click to expand...

You do know it was the players and not the club that benefited from the tax avoidance don't you? The only reason the club (or rather MIH until he offloaded the potential liability to Whyte), is that it was apparently written in to the agreements with players that the club would foot any future bill should HMRC come a knocking.

If a player was earning say, £20k per week, with £5k of that funded from the EBT, he would pay 50% of tax on £15k with the EBT £5k being tax free. So would have a take home of approximately £12.5k. So tell me, at what point does that benefit RFC?
 
steve1873 said:
Regardless, they are still paying out the same £20k as they would under "normal circumstances" so they weren't benefiting financially.
Click to expand...
Reducing their tax liability is very much a financial benefit that was either used to get more expensive players, or a bigger squad.
 
Jokester said:
Reducing their tax liability is very much a financial benefit that was either used to get more expensive players, or a bigger squad.
Click to expand...

It wasn't reducing their tax liability, it was reducing their employees' liability. And I use the term employee, and not exclusively players, as some board members and backroom staff are also alleged to have been involved in the EBT's.
 
I'm looking forward to the meltdown from Rangers fans on Liquidation Day. :) For the rest of Scottish football it'll be party time, and my dancing shoes are polished and ready to go!
 
steve1873 said:
It wasn't reducing their tax liability, it was reducing their employees' liability. And I use the term employee, and not exclusively players, as some board members and backroom staff are also alleged to have been involved in the EBT's.
Click to expand...
Indeed they were using these to pay other people, but it was RFC that was using EBTs to avoid PAYE contributions and is why HMRC is after them.

By paying people in this manner it meant that money that would otherwise have went to HMRC as tax was instead available to the employees so they were able to offer more attractive packages than they would have otherwise.
 
Jokester said:
Indeed they were using these to pay other people, but it was RFC that was using EBTs to avoid PAYE contributions and is why HMRC is after them.

By paying people in this manner it meant that money that would otherwise have went to HMRC as tax was instead available to the employees so they were able to offer more attractive packages than they would have otherwise.
Click to expand...

And a tribunal process that has been on going for the best part of 2 years has thus far decided what?

Surely if it was indeed as black and white as you make out, the tribunal would have ruled in HMRC's favour in about 10 minutes, no?
 
steve1873 said:
It wasn't reducing their tax liability, it was reducing their employees' liability. And I use the term employee, and not exclusively players, as some board members and backroom staff are also alleged to have been involved in the EBT's.
Click to expand...

Its reducing their employers liability as well as their employees liability.

You do realise that employers pay a percentage on top of the wages that you get right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom