Scott7 5,130 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 What a pompous statement from Runners-Up FC. Laughable really. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 What a pompous statement from Runners-Up FC. Laughable really. It is to placate the slabbering hordes who are waiting on title stripping. It is going to be fun to watch when they realise that's not happening & they've been misled. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 What a pompous statement from Runners-Up FC. Laughable really. Rangers should reply questioning Juninho's EBT which FC Saville DID NOT tell Scottish football authorities about until 3 years AFTER he'd left the Paedodome. Juninhos payment was also not paid to him until AFTER he'd left his period of employment there. Nobody has ever explained why that was. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 It would be good if our club will say a word or two about this. Maybe, just maybe, instead of handing out statements to the public, they have spoken to the powers in place and make our stance very clear?! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Scotland Tonight on STV were doing a discussion on to-days appeal, in all honesty I wasn't really listening to it, at the end of the programme they had a wee feature on your 'average bear' showing bears (big furry ones) rummaging through bins and wrecking stuff. The tims must have loved it - or maybe it stirred up their hatred more - who knows! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 A wee reminder of what Dave King has said on the trial and title stripping ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 A wee reminder of what Dave King has said on the trial and title stripping ... I just hope King holds up that end of his statement... Armageddon could very well happen - and they all won't even realize it as their all-consuming hatred of all things Rangers blinds them to what is happening !! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 This will never be erased... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pj_1872 0 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Journos such as Alex Tomo on ch4 are fuelling this mass hysteria with incorrect use of terms such as 'cheating' and 'illegal'. The ill informed then take that as gospel and start spewing about title stripping. The SPFL need to provide their stance on this promptly. Surely they had their response prepared in advance? I don't think Rangers need to say anything about it - unless one of the governing bodies indicates any sort of 'action' could follow. If so I'm confident King and the board would respond strongly. Until such time we can let the deluded continue foaming at the mouth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 BTW, you can't help but laugh at that ... a wee while after the Dr article ian posted above #83 Taxpayer faces huge bill after Ingenious Media wins case against HMRC Supreme court rules agency breached duty of confidentiality towards firm that set up controversial film investment schemes The taxpayer is facing a multimillion-pound legal bill after a supreme court judge found against HM Revenue and Customs in a four-year battle with the financial adviser Ingenious Media, a promoter of controversial film investment schemes. HMRC was on Wednesday found to have breached its duty of confidentiality after a senior executive at the agency gave an off-the-record briefing to the Times in 2012, in which he described film investment partnerships as “scams for scumbags”. Ingenious has been awarded costs, which could run to £5m, and is now deciding whether to seek compensation. The firm has previously sought damages of £20m in its battle against HMRC. Founded by the celebrity accountant Patrick McKenna, Ingenious devised ways to use film investment rules introduced by the Labour government to minimise tax for its wealthy clients. It attracted investment from a host of famous names, including Spice Girls Geri Halliwell and Melanie Chisholm, TV stars Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly, singer Robbie Williams and former Big Brother presenter Davina McCall. McKenna’s net worth is estimated at £400m, but his firm’s reputation has suffered. He was hauled before parliament’s public accounts select committee in 2012, and three of his schemes have been challenged by HMRC, which claims to have saved hundreds of millions after taking Ingenious to tax tribunals. In June 2012, two Times journalists had a background briefing on tax-avoidance schemes with Dave Hartnett, the then permanent secretary for tax at HMRC. It had been agreed the meeting was off the record, which Hartnett said he understood to mean that nothing would be published. However, a week later some of his comments appeared in a Times article as coming from a “senior Revenue official”. The article included statements that McKenna had “never left my radar”, that “he’s a big risk for us”, that “we would like to recover lots of tax relief he’s generated for himself and for other people” and that “we’ll clean up on film schemes over the next few years”. Hartnett also said Ingenious was one of two main providers of film investment schemes in the UK, which had enabled investors to avoid at least £5m in tax. McKenna responded by launching a defamation action, which he later dropped in favour of a claim for judicial review. His case was dismissed by the high court, and by the court of appeal. But the supreme court has now found in his favour, saying HMRC breached the duty of confidentiality it owed to Ingenious as a taxpayer. “The fact that Mr Hartnett did not anticipate his comments being reported is in itself no justification for making them,” Lord Toulson, the supreme court justice, said in his ruling. “The whole idea of HMRC officials supplying confidential information about individuals to the media on a non-attributable basis is, or should be, a matter of serious concern.” Toulson agreed with HRMC that the information shared by Hartnett was limited in scope, but said it was not insignificant given the use the newspaper articles made of it. The tax office had justified arranging the briefing on the grounds that it wanted to foster good relations with the media and publicise its views about elaborate tax avoidance schemes. Toulson said these arguments “cannot possibly justify a senior or any other official of HMRC discussing the affairs of individual taxpayers with journalists”. Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 states officials “may not disclose information which is held by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Rvenue and Customs”. However, tax campaigners such as the MP Margaret Hodge argue the confidentiality rules should be reformed. They say greater transparency is needed, for example on tax settlements with big companies and high net worth individuals. A HMRC spokesperson said: “Having earlier won this case in both the high court and court of appeal, HMRC is naturally disappointed by the judgment handed down by the supreme court. “It is important to clarify that this judgment has no bearing on the three Ingenious film partnerships considered by the first-tier tribunal, where HMRC was successful. This protected around £400m in revenues for the exchequer.” Ingenious declined to comment on whether it would now seek damages, or on how much compensation it might seek. The firm sold its investment management arm, which managed £1.8bn on behalf of its high net worth clients, to private equity earlier this year. “What this isn’t about is restricting HMRC’s ability to collect taxes,” said the Ingenious chief executive, Neil Forster. “Nor is it about restricting the freedom of the press to pursue public interest stories. This is about the principle of protecting taxpayer confidentiality and ensuring that information isn’t used by HMRC contrary to its own guidelines in order to pursue relationships with the press.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/19/taxpayer-huge-bill-ingenious-media-hmrc-wins-case This year, they lost a 700m tax bill-case though, as reported below ... Beckham-backed film funding firm loses fight against £700m tax bill Ingenious, whose investors also include Gary Lineker and which has backed films such as Avatar, says it will contest ruling A controversial film-funding scheme whose celebrity investors included David Beckham, Gary Lineker and Ant and Dec has lost its latest court battle against a £700m tax bill. The financing firm behind the scheme, Ingenious, immediately said it would appeal against the ruling. Ingenious had attracted 1,400 investors – who also included Wayne Rooney and Jeremy Paxman – with the promise of profits as well as tax breaks by supporting films such as Avatar and Life of Pi. However, HMRC argued such schemes were not legitimate investments but a means of avoiding tax, and last August a court ruled investors should only receive tax relief on 30% not 100% of their investment. Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news Read more The two sides failed to agree on the terms of the ruling, with HMRC believing it meant the production costs associated with making the films were capital costs, and thus the investors were not due any tax relief on this either. Ingenious said it “strongly disputed this interpretation on the basis that it was completely at odds with the whole thrust of a very lengthy and closely argued judgment”. In a new ruling clarifying the original decision, tribunal judge Charles Hellier has agreed none of the tax deductions were allowable. But he admitted “misgivings and reluctance” over the decision, adding: “We have not found this an easy decision, and are comforted by the fact that others have had similar difficulties with the concept of capital.” HMRC said: “We are pleased that the tribunal has agreed with us that the vast majority of what was claimed in tax relief by Ingenious investors was simply not due.” Confirming that Ingenious would appeal, a spokesperson said: “We strongly disagree with the tribunal’s clarification of a technical matter from its summer 2016 ruling. It is wholly unsatisfactory that the tribunal reached this decision with ‘misgivings and reluctance’. We will be appealing the entire decision of the tribunal.” A source said most of the disputed tax bills had already been paid by investors but would be reclaimed from HMRC if the financing firm won its appeal. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jun/01/beckham-backed-film-funding-firm-loses-fight-against-700m-tax-bill 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.