Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

They will have absolutely no chance against HMRC. HMRC are well within their powers to levy a tax bill based on what they believe to be tax avoidance. The fact they lost the case doesn't mean they weren't entitled to a) issue a bill for it as their case was built on their interpretation of UK tax legislation and b) appeal it.

 

Yep, we all know that. Like we know about their "deals" with Vodafone and Starbucks et al, where their actions or inactions cost the British taxpayers millions. Here they chased and chase a company that will get them next to nothing in return should they win (at least when it comes to their investment on the case), and it may well not be used as a "precedence case", as they previously said that each EBT case is dealt as a unique one. Back-dating tax "liabilities" after a new ruling as such is questionable in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, we all know that. Like we know about their "deals" with Vodafone and Starbucks et al, where their actions or inactions cost the British taxpayers millions. Here they chased and chase a company that will get them next to nothing in return should they win (at least when it comes to their investment on the case), and it may well not be used as a "precedence case", as they previously said that each EBT case is dealt as a unique one. Back-dating tax "liabilities" after a new ruling as such is questionable in itself.

 

I don't know about the deals with Starbucks and Vodafone. Will you please explain the ins and outs to me?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, we all know that. Like we know about their "deals" with Vodafone and Starbucks et al, where their actions or inactions cost the British taxpayers millions. Here they chased and chase a company that will get them next to nothing in return should they win (at least when it comes to their investment on the case), and it may well not be used as a "precedence case", as they previously said that each EBT case is dealt as a unique one. Back-dating tax "liabilities" after a new ruling as such is questionable in itself.

 

Show me where in the tax legislation that HMRC were doing something illegal, both in the case of chasing our EBT or in giving Vodafone et al tax breaks. Many western countries provide tax breaks. You say that it cost the taxpayers millions.... did it ? What if they hadn't offered Vodafone the tax breaks ? You think Vodafone would still have been based out of the UK or do you think they would have found a tax-efficient jurisdiction ?

 

You can shout it as often as you like... but you suggested the Club should look to HMRC for recompense... how does that work when HMRC have acted within the government's mandated tax legislation ? That would be sheer folly, and would cost the club an exorbitant amount in legal bills.

 

HMRC, or at least some of their staff, are clearly complicit given confidential information found its way into the public domain. But that wouldn't give the club a right to sue HMRC on the grounds they acted outwith their remot

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the deals with Starbucks and Vodafone. Will you please explain the ins and outs to me?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

They have no bearing on our situation whatsoever. der Berliner is simply throwing a red herring into the debate.

 

Basically the government gave them tax breaks to operate in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me where in the tax legislation that HMRC were doing something illegal, both in the case of chasing our EBT or in giving Vodafone et al tax breaks. Many western countries provide tax breaks. You say that it cost the taxpayers millions.... did it ? What if they hadn't offered Vodafone the tax breaks ? You think Vodafone would still have been based out of the UK or do you think they would have found a tax-efficient jurisdiction ?

 

You can shout it as often as you like... but you suggested the Club should look to HMRC for recompense... how does that work when HMRC have acted within the government's mandated tax legislation ? That would be sheer folly, and would cost the club an exorbitant amount in legal bills.

 

HMRC, or at least some of their staff, are clearly complicit given confidential information found its way into the public domain. But that wouldn't give the club a right to sue HMRC on the grounds they acted outwith their remot

 

You just asked me whether I noticed that a couple of our talented youth players played against Aberdeen. May I give that compliment back and ask you whether you read the two postings of mine you are referring to again? If you'd do me that favourn, look for word like "might", "shareholders", "oldco" and "Yep, we all know that.". At no time did I "shout" about the "Club" and "recompense".

 

In the meantime, HMRC was rather adamant not doing "deals with us", be it SDM or because of Whyte's previous or whatnot. They were not that shy doing deals with said companies though. Because of "tax-efficient jurisdiction".

 

Basically the government gave them tax breaks to operate in the UK.

 

Well, that will ease the mind of those hundred thousand Bears with regard to HMRC's behaviour untowards us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that will ease the mind of those hundred thousand Bears with regard to HMRC's behaviour untowards us.

 

Only those who believe that they are in any way linked. Sadly, there are some who read the witterings of the ill-informed and swallow it all as fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.