BDO granted leave for Supreme Court appeal

[SteveC 150]

No chance we will get any apology,we are cheats whatever the outcome!

 

And the Fighting Fund should be kept until it is either needed to defend us against this charge or that this danger has passed. Anyone thinking that it is all over now as not been paying attention to the last couple of decades (at least)

Edited March 9, 2016 by SteveC

[der Berliner 3,310]

If BDO win this appeal does anyone think we'll get an apology from the pondlife who have been accusing us of cheating or financial doping over these past few years?

Would that be too much to ask ?

 

The answer will be No, but we would have every right to call them "Lynch Mob".

[calscot 0]

And the Fighting Fund should be kept until it is either needed to defend us against this charge or that this danger has passed thinking that it is all over now as not been paying attention to the last couple of decades (at least)

 

As said before, I don't think the fighting fund is needed any more, as we now have a Rangers supporting board who are as up for defending the club and its trophies as much as we are. Not spending the money just means it's probably doing nothing for a long time. If the club are struggling for cash to fight stuff like this, we can always do another whip round.

 

We can fight any attack without the fighting fund money.

[boabie 230]

On a slightly separate note, the skidmarks are wetting themselves over some announcement during the budget today -

 

"The Chancellor announced at Budget 2016 that the government will take action to ensure those who have used disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes pay their fair share of tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs). This follows an earlier announcement about these schemes at Autumn Statement 2015."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-disguised-remuneration-avoidance-schemes-overview-of-changes-and-technical-note/technical-note

 

I've no idea whether this affects our guys or not or whether the big tax case result would cover it all as far as liability resting with Murrays companies or personally with those who used the EBT's. No doubt Ill Phil and his cabal of tax experts will blog soon.

[der Berliner 3,310]

The bad thing here is that the whole affair has been dragged on and on and on, ever since HMRC first raised its head. You wonder how much knowledge the last three judges (and HMRC) had of this stuff, as their "common sense" vote ensured that the affair went to the last possible place and was not finally judged. I doubt that the SC will rule on "our" case before the above has been pushed through. And I wonder even more whether the dark cabal that leads our game won't take this opportunity to "review" any title won during those years.

 

NB: Isn't it the case that tax etc. is being paid for these cases, they would essentially be dropped? Given that it is ruled upon only now (or then), wouldn't it be able to contest any other fees and penalties involved - as EBTs were legal up to now (or then). So only the "raw" tax has to be paid? Just asking.

Edited March 17, 2016 by der Berliner

[boabie 230]

NB: Isn't it the case that tax etc. is being paid for these cases, they would essentially be dropped? Given that it is ruled upon only now (or then), wouldn't it be able to contest any other fees and penalties involved - as EBTs were legal up to now (or then). So only the "raw" tax has to be paid? Just asking.

 

My understanding is that HMRC are pushing for the tax, interest and penalties to be paid.

[RANGERRAB 3,336]

My understanding is that HMRC are pushing for the tax, interest and penalties to be paid.

 

so how much are they 'pushing for' then ?

[RabiDuck 89]

so how much are they 'pushing for' then ?

 

As much as the club has +10%?

[RANGERRAB 3,336]

As much as the club has +10%?

 

And where did you get this from ? Kerryfail St ?

[der Berliner 3,310]

My understanding is that HMRC are pushing for the tax, interest and penalties to be paid.

 

That is what they want, with exorbitant penalties and fees and whatnot, 74m or the like. Yet, question would be whether they have a legal basis for such a claim IF the law is only changed now. One would agree that they might want the tax in full, but wanting penalties for something retrospectively demanded?

 

Essentially, this is de jure nothing that will concern the club. Any demands will fall into the liquidators lap. De facto the SFA and SPFL might want to revitalise the title-witch hunt (for which they had and still have no rulings ... apart from some mumbo-jumbo lines that they might twist and bend to their liking).