EBT: Side letter or contract???

[Zappa 0]

so they haven't seen the letters only evidence that their are letters.

 

It's hard to say whether they're indirectly claiming to have seen copies of this so-called evidence or if they've seen the actual material that was submitted as evidence on behalf of HMRC. Either way, I can't see how it would be legal for them to have seen that evidence, so you would like to think that they couldn't be called or relied on as witnesses by the SPL's kangaroo court.

[Zappa 0]

They could call on HMRC as witnesses too presumably as that is where the evidence is likely to have come from.

 

Yes, or whoever submitted the evidence to the EBT case Tribunal (FTT?) on HMRC's behalf. Solicitors?

[craig 5,199]

Yes, or whoever submitted the evidence to the EBT case Tribunal (FTT?) on HMRC's behalf. Solicitors?

 

Doubt they would be able to call on the solicitors, would they not be protected by client priviledge ? HMRC case leaders could be called though I would have thought.

[Zappa 0]

Doubt they would be able to call on the solicitors, would they not be protected by client priviledge ?

 

I'm not sure Craig, but I certainly don't think it was legal for anyone at Pacific Quay to see evidence or copies of evidence and I think that's why the beeb didn't air any images of the so-called evidence on Daly's sensationalist program.

[RANGERRAB 3,360]

Is it not the case that HMRC are only interested if payments made to these EBT's were contractual, therefore taxable ? Payments are supposed to be discretionary i.e. would mean no contract. I fail to see how 'side letters' could be considered contracts.

If HMRC fail in their case due to 'side letters' not being considered as contracts where would that leave the SPL investigation ? surely they wouldn't pursue this any further.

It's often overlooked that EBT's were used by thousands of UK companies throughout the 2000's and were perfectly legal if used correctly

[der Berliner 3,367]

I'm not that familiar with British law, but can evidence apparently illegally obtaind from HMRC people be used in court?

 

And while I am at it, this is an investigation by the SPL. AFAIK, a "private investigation", though headed by learned law-people. I would assume that HMRC's investigation is a "real" one done by courts though, as it involves the "state". I'm just trying to understand the "levels" of legal responsibility. Any outcome of the SPL investigation would be regarded as what, legally binding for SPL members as it just checks out and rules about the statues of the SPL/SFA et al? Is it just a learned opinion on the matter that could be challenge by another judge (like what was done with the transfer embargo), an opinion that the SPL will want to enforce henceforth on its members? Could, in turn, e.g. a club set up an investigation to double-check the dealings of the SPL/SFA and certain other clubs in this? It's all a touch murky this ...

[True_Ger_1872 2]

In terms of is a side letter a contractually binding agreement - from what I gather, there is something called law of TORT I think??? which in essence states that to constitute a contract there doesnt need to be any signing of documents but if the document exists and then the player did infact undertake the actions described within that letter then that can be seen as the player 'agreeing to the contract'

 

Not 100% sure as this isnt my forte....

[Juancornetto 1]

Under Scottish Law, contracts are very open and fluid things (surely the anti-thesis of what a contract is intended to do?). You don't have to have a signed document either so it really worries me that we might be banged to rights here supposing there are "side letters" available. AS long as they make a "unilateral promise" to do something or pay something then in most cases that would be considered a contract under Scots Law. The one saving grace here is that the SFA /SPL aren't working under any particular legal system but their own brand of quasi-legal gobbledygook.

 

http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed17868

[the gunslinger 3,366]

In terms of is a side letter a contractually binding agreement - from what I gather, there is something called law of TORT I think??? which in essence states that to constitute a contract there doesnt need to be any signing of documents but if the document exists and then the player did infact undertake the actions described within that letter then that can be seen as the player 'agreeing to the contract'

 

Not 100% sure as this isnt my forte....

 

that's not at all what a tort is.

English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case. A tort is not enforced by the police, and it is a civil action taken by one citizen against another, and tried in a court in front of a judge (only rarely, in certain cases of defamation, with a jury). Tort derives from middle English for "injury", from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from Latin, neuter of tortus "twisted", from past participle of torquēre