Martin O’Neill face £20m loss

[calscot 0]

But due to ambiguity of the Rangers case, the narrative has moved to condemn tax avoidance altogether as "immoral". Obviously that changes when it's not Rangers.

[der Berliner 3,282]

This is a point which I think has been missed with the players investment schemes, and one which I don't think defends OUR position.

 

It is almost certainly the case that the players paid into their movie schemes themselves and claimed the tax deduction.

 

It is a crucial difference, the one between whether the Club paid it in or the players paid it in. IMHO.

 

Isn't either considered tax avoidance still?

[Bluedell 5,354]

Isn't either considered tax avoidance still?

 

Yes, both are, and tax avoidance is OK.

 

It's only when the schemes are not correctly implemented that problems occur.

[craig 5,199]

Isn't either considered tax avoidance still?

 

Yes, they are.

 

The crucial difference though is that some of our fans are trying to equate the movie investment schemes as being the equivalent to the EBT's. They will only be so if they are invested in by the same type of legal entity.

 

EBT's - Club funded them

Movies Schemes - players funded them personally

 

The difference is that with the movie schemes you cannot claim the Club itself had a sporting advantage owing to the Club's tax avoidance practices as the Club were not involved. What the players do with their money has no effect on whether the Club gained a benefit. The Club, simply, were not involved. The same cannot be said for EBT's.

[RANGERRAB 3,293]

Yes, they are.

 

The crucial difference though is that some of our fans are trying to equate the movie investment schemes as being the equivalent to the EBT's. They will only be so if they are invested in by the same type of legal entity.

 

EBT's - Club funded them

Movies Schemes - players funded them personally

 

The difference is that with the movie schemes you cannot claim the Club itself had a sporting advantage owing to the Club's tax avoidance practices as the Club were not involved. What the players do with their money has no effect on whether the Club gained a benefit. The Club, simply, were not involved. The same cannot be said for EBT's.

 

Don't disagree with anything you say Craig but the word hypocrisy springs to mind regards 'them' & their tax accusations.

Now it appears some of their own were at it too. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance whichever scheme you care to mention.

[craig 5,199]

Don't disagree with anything you say Craig but the word hypocrisy springs to mind regards 'them' & their tax accusations.

Now it appears some of their own were at it too. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance whichever scheme you care to mention.

 

Yes, but when tax avoidance is sought by the Club in order to provide increased emoluments to the staff then the Club are most certainly culpable if found to be falling foul of tax legislation.

When the player does it the Club can, rightly, absolve itself of any of the responsibility of it. Even if Celtic deducted it from their wages it would have been at the request of the player. So not really Celtic's problem.

 

I know what you are saying, but it is still hard to call it hypocrisy because you are talking about the legal entity in one situation and the employee in another.

[barca72 440]

Yes, they are.

 

The crucial difference though is that some of our fans are trying to equate the movie investment schemes as being the equivalent to the EBT's. They will only be so if they are invested in by the same type of legal entity.

 

EBT's - Club funded them

Movies Schemes - players funded them personally

 

The difference is that with the movie schemes you cannot claim the Club itself had a sporting advantage owing to the Club's tax avoidance practices as the Club were not involved. What the players do with their money has no effect on whether the Club gained a benefit. The Club, simply, were not involved. The same cannot be said for EBT's.

 

Yes, but when tax avoidance is sought by the Club in order to provide increased emoluments to the staff then the Club are most certainly culpable if found to be falling foul of tax legislation.

When the player does it the Club can, rightly, absolve itself of any of the responsibility of it. Even if Celtic deducted it from their wages it would have been at the request of the player. So not really Celtic's problem.

 

I know what you are saying, but it is still hard to call it hypocrisy because you are talking about the legal entity in one situation and the employee in another.

 

 

 

I don't know if the explanation is that simple. You can correct me if I'm wrong here.

As I understand this EBT scheme, the money paid to the player is a loan paid into a trust. The player may access that money at various times but he has to pay any monies used back to the trust.

At the point where all of the money is used the player must pay the tax due on the entire loan, or in the case of his death his estate pays the tax due.

Now, if the club is paying a player, and for illustration purposes, £100 per week and the tax due which is deducted by the company and payed to the taxman is £25 per week. So the player gets £75 per week regular pay plus has £100 per week deposited in his EBT, which he himself will have to pay the tax due at a later date.

Now since the club has paid the taxes to the taxman on the regular pay when due, and has recorded the payment to the player's EBT as required, where has the club gained an advantage? The only person who has gained an advantage is the player. The club may have assisted the player by doing some administration work, the player's full earnings are payed to him one way or another, but other than that there is no tax advantage to the club.

How do we know that it was indeed the club who sold the player on the EBT scheme? Isn't it the job of Investment Managers to sell these instruments to their clients? Just the same as they could have sold their clients on a movie-scheme tax avoidance instrument?