Frankie 8,150 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Read here... http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6851/TC02372.pdf Have fun! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchellenman 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Think I'll let someone summarise it for me mate! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Lazy as it might be how much did we owe then? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DietofWorms Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 We owe nothing and we are owed a lot of answers. I feel weird. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabiDuck 89 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 1 The principal trust purportedly constituted by the Trust Deed by MGM Limited and Insinger Trust Co Ltd dated 20 April 2001 was valid and subsisting and continues. 2 The sub-trusts (subject to our remarks in paras 210 and 226) purportedly 25 constituted by the relative declarations of trust were valid and subsisting and continue. 3 The sums advanced to the employees of the Appellants by way of loan in terms of the relative loan documents, were made in pursuance of discretionary powers and remain recoverable and represent debts on their estates. 4 The sums advanced by the Appellant companies into the principal trust, 30 whether on payment thereto, or on payment to a sub-trust, or thereafter on being advanced by way of loan to the employee, were not at any time held absolutely or unreservedly for or to the order of the individual employee. 233. Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially. It was conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC, and 35 we have found that in certain other limited instances, there may be a similar liability. To that extent the assessments should stand. In these circumstances we expect that it is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle. Parties can no doubt settle the sums due for the limited number of cases mentioned without further reference to the Tribunal. If I understand correctly, it was a majority and not unanimous decision and there is some finding of guilt, although the final figure is significantly less than was first thought, but then that's only a quick flick over it and I'm sure somebody can be much more accurate and specific on matters than I! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Can someone break this down for the hard of thinking? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeeBlueDevil 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 :robbo: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim1955 12 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Some people are going to be very, very upset by this and somehow that gives me a warm glow. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 We win 2-1, I think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Can someone break this down for the hard of thinking? It means we have suffered the most needless liquidation in history. 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.