Watch OldCo 'big tax case' live today and tomorrow

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Down to the serious business end now, Thornhill and Dunlop ripping asunder HMRC fallacies and misconstruals.

Edited March 16, 2017 by aweebluesoandso

[boabie 230]

I think he's playing a dangerous game, close to scoring an own goal re benefits in kind.

 

As far as I can see BH he has spent 2 days saying that the scheme was NOT "benefits in kind". He's been quoting what seems like half of UK law establishing that it's not.

[boabie 230]

I liked Dunlops earlier point where he was on about HMRC moving the goalposts - " If the plan says 'repayable in 80 years' can HMRC alter that to say 'it really means payable in 80 days'"

[boabie 230]

Break for lunch. Thornhill back up at 2pm and says he'll be about another half an hour talking.

[Scott7 5,400]

A better morning than yesterday but in all honesty what the hell do I know?

[pete 2,499]

As far as I can see BH he has spent 2 days saying that the scheme was NOT "benefits in kind". He's been quoting what seems like half of UK law establishing that it's not.

 

Totally agree that Columbo has spent 2 days and 40 different ways just to say they were part of their wages. He keeps saying "If you ask the players they will tell you that but he has shown no written proof that they would actually say that. The only thing he had was an e-mail from McLelland(?) to Bain asking why his wages were not being paid into the trust. I am no expert but it looks like the Rangers lawyers ripped their case apart. HMRC must be hoping for a common sense verdict.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Emoluments v benefits in kind. The benefit has to be from and by reason of the employment as the source of the benefit. Benefit in kind apparently depends on costs incurred.

 

So if I get this argument it is that the payments are indeed benefits in kind but not taxable because they are payments into a trust over which the employee has no control?

[boabie 230]

Professional beggar and full time fool JJ makes this point when giving his slant on todays proceedings -

 

"Mr Dunlop, who is a member of Mr Thornhill’s team, then makes reference to an EBT received by Tommy McLean whose name was never disclosed by Mark Daly of the BBC. McLean joins Souness as a beneficiary long after they have left Rangers employment. In Souness’ case it was a bung for buying from Rangers. Was the same true of McLean in 1996-1998? Did he receive an EBT bung to facilitate a transfer, or will he disingenuously claim, as Souness did, that he was engaged in sourcing players after the fact. "

 

Er................ Tommy McLean was head of youth development at Rangers in 2001.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Totally agree that Columbo has spent 2 days and 40 different ways just to say they were part of their wages. He keeps saying "If you ask the players they will tell you that but he has shown no written proof that they would actually say that. The only thing he had was an e-mail from McLelland(?) to Bain asking why his wages were not being paid into the trust. I am no expert but it looks like the Rangers lawyers ripped their case apart. HMRC must be hoping for a common sense verdict.

 

I'll stand to be corrected particularly as I've only watched the last half an hour but it seems to me he's arguing the opposite, namely that the payments are not emoluments. If they're emoluments, surly they are taxable? Is that not the HMRC argument?

 

The original ruling was:

 

“The majority view reflects the argument that the controversial monies received by the employees were not paid to them as their absolute entitlement.

 

“The legal effect of the trust/loan structure was sufficient to preclude this. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate.”

[boabie 230]

Totally agree that Columbo has spent 2 days and 40 different ways just to say they were part of their wages. He keeps saying "If you ask the players they will tell you that but he has shown no written proof that they would actually say that. The only thing he had was an e-mail from McLelland(?) to Bain asking why his wages were not being paid into the trust. I am no expert but it looks like the Rangers lawyers ripped their case apart. HMRC must be hoping for a common sense verdict.

 

Yesterday he said in reference to McLelland, "When asked what would have happened had he not been made part of the scheme and able to draw money from it he replied, 'I would have left' "