Alex Mooney: Rangers use of EBTs is indefensible but end this hate fest...

[Thinker 851]

The scheme was legal. But not the way we administered it involving side letters promising bonuses.

 

I still don't think that's 100% correct. The way we administered it was not illegal either - it simply failed (according to the latest ruling) to reduce the tax bill.

[boabie 230]

I'm not having a go at you mate, I'm just fed up with all of this pish. We all want to move on but we are not being allowed to when we keep hearing pish from so called journalists.

 

I couldn't agree more buddy. Apart from those who's single reason for existing is that they hate Rangers, I think everybody wants to move on. If the end game is that Murray made a monumental erse of things and owes HMRC a wad of cash then fair enough. But no sporting advantage was gained and that should be the end of the matter as far as the football authorities are concerned. Therefore the matter is over.

 

I never knew he was a Rangers fan. I still don't agree this is morally wrong though, a lot of clubs and businesses use the same or similar schemes, and most fans had no idea about these types of schemes at the time,me for one. We keep getting beaten up with all this is all I'm saying,it really only involves oldco now anyway,unless I'm wrong with that as well?.

 

I apologise. I was trying to point out that in answering MY point you were answering a Rangers fan. I have no idea what fit the author kicks with.

[ascender 352]

So using a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme is morally wrong?. I will need to cancel my ISA's and pension funds.

 

Pretty much, yes. There's always loads of these schemes around which are high risk because they "guarantee" that you won't pay as much tax as you know you should as you're exploiting a loophole which everyone knows will be closed at some point in the future and/or challenged by the taxman. ISAs and pensions as they are used by most don't fall in to this category.

 

It's all about risk and to some part conscience - EBTs are like some of those tax schemes you read about celebrities having where they're hardly paying any tax but aren't doing anything illegal. Then the Daily Mail finds out and gets on their high horse. It's exactly like the EBTs, David Murrays accountants would have given him some different options with differing levels of risk and tax payable I guess.

 

So I do get that part of the argument as avoidance is different from evasion and avoidance schemes can be seen as being morally indefensible.

 

I think that's a well written piece though for the most part although there's a few wee inconsistencies which are disappointing.

[Bluedell 5,329]

So I do get that part of the argument as avoidance is different from evasion and avoidance schemes can be seen as being morally indefensible.

 

Everyone avoids tax by claiming their annual allowances. Is that morally indefensible?

[Frankie 8,136]

Lifted from FF:

 

 

Very interesting this - presuming the lad's figures are correct.

 

Out of those yen years, we had the higher wage bill once and higher turnover only twice. Further, our average wage-to-turnover ratio is lower over the piece also.

[Rousseau 9,310]

Tax avoidance is immoral. Discuss.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is immoral, but merely unethical. It's not black-and-white when it's legal...

[ian1964 10,386]

Very interesting this - presuming the lad's figures are correct.

 

Out of those yen years, we had the higher wage bill once and higher turnover only twice. Further, our average wage-to-turnover ratio is lower over the piece also.

 

 

macdonut

macdonut is online now Permanently Unused Substitute

 

Join Date

02-01-2007

Posts

656

 

Default Re: Annual wage bills us v them "EBT years"

 

The figures are legitimate, barring any typos I made.. they come from the published accounts of us and them.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Let's throw this argument (snatched from FF) into the mix again:

 

 

Scottish clubs which have not paid their debts

 

Debt refinancing has become a common feature amongst Scottish football clubs. Refinancing is really a euphemism for debt being written off. That means the debts do not have to be repaid.

 

Hence what has happened is that clubs have lived beyond their means, spent too much money, but are not required to repay the debt.

 

Interestingly, very often it is Lloyds Bank which has consented to the refinancing, the very same bank which would not cut any kind of deal with Rangers.

 

Can anyone seriously argue that where debts have been forgiven, the clubs concerned have not received an advantage, sporting or otherwise?

 

I don't recall anyone raising thus as an issue for these clubs. Compare and contrast with Rangers

 

Needs to be highlighted.

 

The following clubs have received this advantage. There may be others I have missed.

 

 

Dundee

http://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=951/title=dundee+fc+secures+future+with+cva+agreement

 

Kilmarnock

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26583407

 

Hearts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25154126

 

Hibs

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/5060

 

Aberdeen

http://www.afc.co.uk/news/5358.php#.Vkdt3-J2zIV

 

Dunfermline

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/bank-of-scotland-writes-off-over-11-million-of-masterton-debt-1.172620

 

Dundee United

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26079931

 

Patrick Thistle

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/partick-thistle-debt-free-after-bank-deal-1-3947846

 

Somehow, sporting advantage and integrity become rather fuzzy ...

[boabie 230]

Everyone avoids tax by claiming their annual allowances. Is that morally indefensible?

 

From the day I started working until the day I retired I never claimed any annual allowance mate. My employer paid me a salary. The government took their cut . I got what was left.

[Scott7 5,108]

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

 

The words of Lord Clyde, Lord President of the Court of Session in a tax case in 1929.