der Berliner 3,249 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 ... unless, as some seem to think, Thornhill ripped HMRC's case to shreds and we have no "real" case to answer in the first place. Perhaps the predating of the 2010 ruling can be challenged. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 ... unless, as some seem to think, Thornhill ripped HMRC's case to shreds and we have no "real" case to answer in the first place. Perhaps the predating of the 2010 ruling can be challenged. Possibly but if that rumour was true why did it have to go to a second 3-day hearing? If it was so cut and dry, I reckon it would have been decided last October. I wouldn't believe any speculation myself. Has all been conducted in private so we'll just have to wait for the judgement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,249 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Well, yes. Since the case is apparently paraded as a precedence by HMRC, we/Thornhill probably presented as much evidence as possible to get a favorable result. Which of the evidence or points presented by our team are more relevant for the case remains to be seen. On a sidenote, are we actually represented by the MIH team (since they arranged the EBTs) or do we have our "own" lawyers here? For, as some said, this case may also have implications to MIH later on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Well, yes. Since the case is apparently paraded as a precedence by HMRC, we/Thornhill probably presented as much evidence as possible to get a favorable result. Which of the evidence or points presented by our team are more relevant for the case remains to be seen. On a sidenote, are we actually represented by the MIH team (since they arranged the EBTs) or do we have our "own" lawyers here? For, as some said, this case may also have implications to MIH later on. I honestly don't know mate. Apparently this is HMRC v MIH but I'd fancy that we'd have to be involved given the substantial nature of the claim - as well as us not being part of MIH any more. Like I say, as far as I'm concerned, it is very difficult to judge the situation as there has been next to no official comment. Any discussion on the subject is 100% speculation. That's not to say people aren't right in their analysis - just that without knowing the evidence submitted it's impossible to say 'guilty or not guilty'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I happen to agree with Frankie on this especially on the MIH involvement as this is what started the investigation , what has always amazed me is that the amount required of MIH has never been leaked , now the question needs asked who benefits from all this secrecy , who,s name is never mentioned , and who is always been rumoured to be pulling the strings in the back ground 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 With the last hearing only lasting 3 days, in my opinion, someone's case has collapsed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,249 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 With the last hearing only lasting 3 days, in my opinion, someone's case has collapsed. If only ... the problem is, the hearing was scheduled for exactly three days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I happen to agree with Frankie on this especially on the MIH involvement as this is what started the investigation , what has always amazed me is that the amount required of MIH has never been leaked , now the question needs asked who benefits from all this secrecy , who,s name is never mentioned , and who is always been rumoured to be pulling the strings in the back ground Moriarty aka SDM 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I would actually have a wry chuckle if it turned out SDM was behind it all and had put Whyte up to stonewall the whole HMRC issue before he steps back in and "rescues" the club. The tims would go absolutely apoplectic as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.