colinstein 294 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Rumours on Facebook (Blue Heaven) we've won again. To be announced later today. Warning ! this might be shite 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 If so, one would hope the judge this time stops it all dead in its tracks and say: no further appeal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 16, 2015 Author Share Posted July 16, 2015 If so, one would hope the judge this time stops it all dead in its tracks and say: no further appeal. Apparently HMRC are going to appeal again no proof of any of this yet 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Found this tax expert view from Accountancy Live quite interesting (from October last year): The ‘Rangers employee benefit trust (EBT) case’ (Murray Group Holdings [2014] UKUT 0292) has been – is still being – fought with some ferocity. On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, HMRC spent six days on its legal submissions, presenting (though unsuccessfully) a long list of reasons why the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) had misdirected itself in law. The case is presently moving forward to the appeal court in Scotland, the Court of Session. The FTT decision at the outset of this case was a majority one only – with a carefully, and at times rather passionately, argued dissenting minority view. Whether one was attracted by the majority or the minority approach, there is a certain sense now, as the case proceeds to the appellate court following a pretty firm rejection of HMRC’s appeal by the review tribunal (the Upper Tribunal), that wider issues are perhaps coming into view. In particular, it seems, the court’s respect for the integrity of the function and process of the specialist Tax Tribunal: the Upper Tribunal itself noted previous House of Lords’ guidance that decisions of expert tribunals should be respected unless quite clear they have misdirected themselves, and that appellate courts ‘should not rush to find misdirections in law simply because they might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently’. Some might even be persuaded of a ‘constitutional’ angle – whether the judicial function is seen to be exercised without favour when the executive agency bears down heavily, in this case for a third time. - See more at: https://www.accountancylive.com/employee-benefit-trusts-fallout-rangers-case#sthash.iREzyOI5.dpuf Edited July 16, 2015 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 It is quite clear the verdict will be in Rangers favour again but the real issue in all of this is who initiated all of this and why. It is these individuals who need to be exposed and why they did this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I can only think the reason for this is that HMRC are using Rangers as a high profile example and basically telling everyone - just pay what we ask or we'll litigate the hell out of you; even if we lose, you really can't afford to fight us and we'll likely put you out of business. It's good for the tax coffers but totally circumventing the law, democracy and general fairness... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave181 0 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I think they stated at the time of the FTT that they would "appeal, appeal & appeal again!!".... The question I would like answered is how much is this costing the taxpayer? What's the betting that it's now higher than the £10MILLION offered by SDM to settle 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 16, 2015 Author Share Posted July 16, 2015 I think they stated at the time of the FTT that they would "appeal, appeal & appeal again!!".... The question I would like answered is how much is this costing the taxpayer? What's the betting that it's now higher than the £10MILLION offered by SDM to settle HMRC have been asked this but fobbed it off saying they couldn't seperate the costs of one case They're not going to tell us 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave181 0 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The reluctance to divulge the info tells us everything we need to know. HMRC have dug a hole for themselves and don't want to be seen to climbdown in there pursuits but by continuing to put forward the same arguments the result is most likely to be replicated each time it's appealed. In my opinion the Law should be amended in situations like this to only allow a further appeal if new "evidence" is forthcoming and not just the same "we think they got it wrong" line they continue to be allowed to pursue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave181 0 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 That should read ***"their pursuits" - not "there" 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.