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

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I read on another forum this Mooney chap is a Hearts fan? So i'm thinking he doesn't do irony, his club brought down a Banking group with many people losing their jobs, their debt's were conveniently disappeared. and they weren't remotely punished to anything like the level we were. We started at the bottom league, they went into the next league down and subsequently went back to the top league after only one season.

 

Hearts a club that was part of the morally bankrupt cabal, Who fined and punished our club within a hairs breath from oblivion, Hearts got given every advantage, Rules were stretched or twisted for their benefit.

 

That was morally indefensible.

Edited November 18, 2015 by aweebluesoandso

[RANGERRAB 3,253]

''Rangers use of EBTs is indefensible''

 

But they were legal,this is the whole problem!.

 

And 5,000 Uk companies used them.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Yes. That's exactly the same as the sort of high risk, high value tax avoidance schemes we're talking about.

 

Insert confused smiley here....

 

I didn't say they were exactly the same thing but they are both tax avoidance which, according to you is morally indefensible.

 

I try and avoid tax by claiming for pension payments, professional fees etc and I fail to see why my tax avoidance should be indefensible.

 

Tax avoidance occurs with virtually all companies, and there's often an element of risk. With hindsight the risk involved with EBTs was too high, but not for moral reasons.

[buster. 4,808]

I didn't say they were exactly the same thing but they are both tax avoidance which, according to you is morally indefensible.

 

I try and avoid tax by claiming for pension payments, professional fees etc and I fail to see why my tax avoidance should be indefensible.

 

Tax avoidance occurs with virtually all companies, and there's often an element of risk. With hindsight the risk involved with EBTs was too high, but not for moral reasons.

 

Hindsight wasn't required to see that the scale of use was reckless, given the element of risk.

[JobearGer 0]

The BBC-forced their freelance employees to use Tax Avoidance schemes, Paxman blew the whistle on them.

Hypocrites like Tom English, one of our biggest detractors, and one who wanted us punished to the full extent of the Law, used them.

Remember at the time we started using them, they were LEGAL, sure SDM used them to the extreme, but when Tax Experts tell you they are legal, then why not?

 

I see there is an HMRC enquiry into movie Schemes, to see whether or not they are Tax Avoidance Schemes, but surely if EBT's are then the Movie Schemes have to be?

Edited November 23, 2015 by JobearGer

[der Berliner 3,219]

Hindsight wasn't required to see that the scale of use was reckless, given the element of risk.

 

Hard to tell, as we don't have a clue about the scale used by other companies. If anything, the use of side-letters was sure an "element of risk" that should not have been used or indeed done at all.

[buster. 4,808]

Hard to tell, as we don't have a clue about the scale used by other companies. If anything, the use of side-letters was sure an "element of risk" that should not have been used or indeed done at all.

 

No it isn't and it had nothing to do with other companies.

 

We (Sir Duped) built up amounts (scale) without any type of funds/provision held in reserve for if the risk (HMRC interpretation/action) were to crystalise and be successful.

[craig 5,195]

No it isn't and it had nothing to do with other companies.

 

We (Sir Duped) built up amounts (scale) without any type of funds/provision held in reserve for if the risk (HMRC interpretation/action) were to crystalise and be successful.

 

I don't think many companies would provide for a provision of contingent liability where they are using a legal tax avoidance scheme. That is like saying "your pension payments are a tax deduction right now (tax avoidance) but in the future the government may deem them to not be a tax deduction so we will create a contingent liability (or segregate funds) in the event they do".

 

By providing for such an instance (if done through the company books anyway) you are in essence admitting that you aren't sure of the taxable deduction and would be willing HMRC to audit you.

 

I could be wrong obviously And it could be I got the wrong end of your suggestion

[buster. 4,808]

I don't think many companies would provide for a provision of contingent liability where they are using a legal tax avoidance scheme. That is like saying "your pension payments are a tax deduction right now (tax avoidance) but in the future the government may deem them to not be a tax deduction so we will create a contingent liability (or segregate funds) in the event they do".

 

By providing for such an instance (if done through the company books anyway) you are in essence admitting that you aren't sure of the taxable deduction and would be willing HMRC to audit you.

 

I could be wrong obviously And it could be I got the wrong end of your suggestion

 

I'm not an expert either and get your point. However, if funding such a 'provision' wouldn't be the norm, then I'd guess that nor was the scale of use, relative to leaving the business so exposed to the risk of HMRC interpretation/action. The latter being very much the main point.

 

The scale of use and subsequent interpretation by HMRC = Sir Duped et al ducking & diving and the arrival of Craig Whyte.

Edited November 23, 2015 by buster.

[craig 5,195]

I'm not an expert either and get your point. However, if funding such a 'provision' wouldn't be the norm, then I'd guess that nor was the scale of use, relative to leaving the business so exposed to the risk of HMRC interpretation/action. The latter being very much the main point.

 

The scale of use and subsequent interpretation by HMRC = Sir Duped et al ducking & diving and the arrival of Craig Whyte.

 

I understand the sentiment and I am by no means a lover of SDM. But if you are given legitimate advice from tax experts (as was the case here) that EBT's are perfectly legal (again, as was the case here.... until such time as HMRC closed the loophole and compounded that by also applying the legislation retrospectively) then most companies would utilize them to the fullest extent possible.

 

Again, I also understand where people are saying that we were using them too much but if I was running the Club and had been given that advice from people where that is their area of expertise I too would probably have used EBT's to the fullest extent possible. That doesn't necessarily say much though as I am a gambler by nature :D:D:D -

 

I will admit that I find it hard to be overly critical of SDM on this subject because it is highly likely that his advice regarding the EBT's would have come from experts in the field - and when added to the fact that when RFC were using them they were legal, legitimate tax avoidance schemes and I struggle to cast a stone at him for it - there are plenty other things which he deserves to be stoned for, but this one I feel that he was somewhat a victim of circumstance and a desire by HMRC to make an example of us as they had numerous other cases where they wanted to collect Revenues and they needed a test case to test the law and to set precedent.