Frankie 8,150 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1324228-hmrc-in-legal-challenge-against-oldco-rangers-big-tax-case-ruling/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter The taxman has launched a legal challenge against an appeal it lost in the long-running Old Co Rangers "Big Tax Case". The case centres around the use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) for football players and executives. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) maintains the effect of previous tribunal decisions in the case is that employees can avoid paying income tax by agreeing that payments be made to others of their choosing, rather than getting the money themselves. But Julian Ghosh QC, for the HMRC, told judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh it was "still part of the remuneration package." Mr Ghosh said: "When money is paid for something you did it is also derived by the earner, the worker. This cash payment was part of the remuneration package. "It was wages and bonuses. This money was earned for work done." He said so far as the players were concerned it was for appearing in football matches and winning games and for the executives for work performances. Mr Ghosh argued it would be "odd beyond measure" if tax was to be avoided in the circumstances of the case. He said the court was being asked to endorse a situation where an employee said to anyone who paid them for work done, do not pay me but pay another such as my brother or my wife. The scheme used trusts and sub-trusts and the senior counsel said: "The employee would ask that the income and capital of the sub-trust was applied in accordance with his wishes." HMRC maintains that both a First Tier Tribunal and an Upper Tribunal, chaired by judge Lord Doherty, have erred in the action. It claims in the appeal: "The scheme in this case was established in terms that had effect so that, on appointment of the funds to the individual sub-trusts, the sums in question were 'paid' to the employee." The use of employee benefit trusts relate back to Sir David Murray's time in charge of the Ibrox club before ownership changed. Old Co Rangers were subsequently forced into administration while under Craig Whyte's control and later went into liquidation. Last year, Lord Doherty largely dismissed the appeal the taxman had brought to an upper tribunal in the "Big Tax Case" although he sent aspects of the case back to the first tier tribunal. The appeal on Tuesday before the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young is expected to last four days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Isn't it essentially the very same arguments being put forward in any of the cases thus far, arguments being defeated twice now? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of The Somme 0 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 All they need is 2 like Crozier, and your Loyalist Blue Arse is well and truly nailed. If they go long enough, based on the law of averages, it will. The obsessed do not give up, they are like brain washed Jihadists. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 If that excuse was the case then the brother or other would be taxed. Makes no difference 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) All they need is 2 like Crozier, and your Loyalist Blue Arse is well and truly nailed.If they go long enough, based on the law of averages, it will. The obsessed do not give up, they are like brain washed Jihadists. If the judge allows it, they have one last chance, i.e. the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen whether - based on the same facts and figures - this Lord rules differently than his two fellow Lords before him. Has the COS ever found in favour of an appellant who already lost in the FTT & UTT along the way? They can only discuss errors in the legal decision, can't they? Which would go down well with their fellow Lords. And as a wee reminder (snatched from FF) ... a) They cannot use any 'win' as a precedent as, by their own admission, every company would be different b) We cannot lose titles or trophies, Lord Nimmo ruled on that c) It was never cheating at any stage and was LEGAL when we used them d) At its peak...when we used them a lot...we were not winning a lot and in fact MON's hammer throwers were at their peak On a sidenote though, the name Lord Carloway somehow brings back memories of non-Rangers-friendly decisions ... Edited July 7, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 The important thing for them to do is argue is why the original decision is wrong. There is no sign of that in the article. You can't just present the same evidence as they appear to be doing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 The way I see it, if two hearings say it's legal and it takes a third to say it isn't, how can your REALLY be guilty. All it says is that the rules were too ambiguous, so all you can do is call an amnesty, tighten up and disambiguate the rules and start again. I can't see how you can be punished when even two tribunals can't tell you broke the rules. At best is seems like entrapment, at worst it's just complete stupidity which makes our tax system a laughing stock. Either the rules are clear or they are unenforceable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I remember Lord Carloway being involved with us before. Can't remember the details Anyone ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) found it ""It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9303601/Rangers-court-triumph-over-transfer-embargo-could-backfire.html Glennie overturned it on appeal Not happy that a judge previously involved should be on this appeal tribunal same source Now, though, anything is possible again and the Telegraph understands that the view in legal circles is that Lord Carloway has cause to incline to the view that since Rangers’ offences were towards the higher end of the scale, the punishment should be proportionate. Certainly, there is concern within the SFA that Rangers are now more likely, rather than less, to suffer sanctions which could see them effectively expelled from football. Edited July 7, 2015 by colinstein 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of The Somme 0 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Don't know if this has any bearing: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13306460.Top_judge_says_Irish_rebel_song_sung_by_fans_will_be_regarded_as__threatening_and_offensive_/ 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.