Jump to content

 

 

Lawful or unlawful?


Recommended Posts

Many journalists have been falling over themselves this week to declare the EBTs as “unlawful” but failing to justify this in any shape or form.

 

Tom English, for example, has spoken to “multiple experts” and is happy with the use of “unlawfully” but fails to disclose who the experts were or why the schemes were “unlawful”. Michael Grant in The Times today repeated the claim, and I am led to believe that other discredited journalists have done likewise.

 

Moynihan Q.C. stated in yesterday’s SPFL statement:

 

"The mere fact that the scheme is ultimately held to have been ineffective does not mean that when the scheme was being applied the club and Oldco acted with less than the utmost good faith."

 

Maugham Q.C. in response to Tom English’s tweet claiming “The way Rangers used EBT scheme was unlawful” said

 

“As a matter of tax law, that's cobblers.”

 

Lastly, let’s look at what the Supreme Court judgment written by Lord Hodge (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree) says on the subject:

 

“In this appeal, there is no suggestion that any part of the transaction, which comprised the tax avoidance scheme, was a sham. The elements of the transaction, which I discuss below, were all genuine and
had legal effect
, as the majority of the FTT held.”

 

If the Supreme Court itself says that the EBTs were legal, then it should once and for all prove that the EBTs were not “unlawful.”

 

So to Tom English, Michael Grant et al, my experts are Lord Hodge, Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Moynihan Q.C. and Maugham Q.C. The floor is open for you to name yours!

Edited by Bluedell
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really quite simple and the attitude of these know-it-alls unsurprising when it comes to inferring illegality.

 

I'll look forward to posting this succinct piece on the main site tomorrow morning.

Edited by Frankie
Link to post
Share on other sites
Many journalists have been falling over themselves this week to declare the EBTs as “unlawful” but failing to justify this in any shape or form.

 

Tom English, for example, has spoken to “multiple experts” and is happy with the use of “unlawfully” but fails to disclose who the experts were or why the schemes were “unlawful”. Michael Grant in The Times today repeated the claim, and I am led to believe that other discredited journalists have done likewise.

 

Moynihan Q.C. stated in yesterday’s SPFL statement:

 

"The mere fact that the scheme is ultimately held to have been ineffective does not mean that when the scheme was being applied the club and Oldco acted with less than the utmost good faith."

 

Maugham Q.C. in response to Tom English’s tweet claiming “The way Rangers used EBT scheme was unlawful” said

 

“As a matter of tax law, that's cobblers.”

 

Lastly, let’s look at what the Supreme Court judgment written by Lord Hodge (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree) says on the subject:

 

“In this appeal, there is no suggestion that any part of the transaction, which comprised the tax avoidance scheme, was a sham. The elements of the transaction, which I discuss below, were all genuine and
had legal effect
, as the majority of the FTT held.”

 

If the Supreme Court itself says that the EBTs were legal, then it should once and for all prove that the EBTs were not “unlawful.”

 

So to Tom English, Michael Grant et al, my experts are Lord Hodge, Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Moynihan Q.C. and Maugham Q.C. The floor is open for you to name yours!

 

I can exclusively reveal Tom English's bank of experts: GerryBhoy67, TheClumpany, Declan1888, CelticQuickNews

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its been ruled upon-----Who amongst US really care anymore.

Let THEM get on with it as they see fit,it doesnt matter a f-ck.ITS OVER.

Its a free country----poeple can do as they wish,or not give a shit (i know where im at.)

 

They can indeed. I've just finished reading that the Daily Retard claims one and a half million online readers. Nearly all - no surprise here - go to the sports section. The advertisers love this. It would be a good idea for Rangers fans to desist - I hope that's what they wish to do.

Edited by SteveC
Link to post
Share on other sites
They can indeed. I've just finished reading that the Daily Retard claims one and a half million online readers. Nearly all - no surprise here - go to the sports section. The advertisers love this. It would be a good idea for Rangers fans to desist - I hope that's what they wish to do.

Yes,most certainly.Lets face it,if WE cant draw a line under it .How can we expect them to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
To my understanding was the case not more about whether tax should have been paid on the EBTs rather than EBTs being unlawful?

 

Agreed, but that doesn't stop these journalists and others claiming that they were unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.