Jump to content

 

 

Lawful or unlawful?


Recommended Posts

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

You will never stop them,never.

They will say they are entitled to their opinion(which they are).

Personally----i dont give a feck about their opinions.They can shove them.They are wrong,but that wont stop them.

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.

 

They can claim all they like, I would love to see evidence of those figures? I suspect it's like most things in that rag, pure fantasy#changetherecord.

Edited by cooponthewing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray used a LEGAL tax avoidance scheme. How the scheme was applied was what got us into bother. Nobody EVER mentioned tax evasion.

Had an ILLEGAL scheme been used Murray would have been facing criminal charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tom English/Jolyon Maugham exchange was actually very funny. The later follow up by the previously sainted Rangers Tax Case and their public insistence that they knew more about it than a QC specialising in tax law was the icing on the cake. It simply further underlined how hugely out of their depth most sports journalists have been on EBTs. No wonder, it's a highly specialist field, it took the Supreme Court to decide their status, this is points of law way, way above the heads of the vast majority of us. Tom English can probably explain to you how the British Lions tactics were wrong in the 1st test against New Zealand and he's probably got a good insight into how Glasgow Warriors will fare under their new coach. He might even have opinions worth listening to regarding how the football in Scotland might go this season. But he knows no more about tax law than anyone else who has had to fill out a self assessment form.

 

I wonder if, say a high profile player picks up an injury, English will tell the doctor his diagnosis of the player is wrong? Will he look over the medical records and suggest a different type of surgery perhaps, maybe changes in rehab and physio work?

 

It's the arrogance of them, instead if admitting they really don't understand 99% of what has happened they pretend they do and get shown up for it publicly. He defended his position later too, it's laughable.

 

Edit - Maugham published this earlier for the hard of thinking. Brilliant - https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/

Edited by JohnMc
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Tom English/Jolyon Maugham exchange was actually very funny. The later follow up by the previously sainted Rangers Tax Case and their public insistence that they knew more about it than a QC specialising in tax law was the icing on the cake. It simply further underlined how hugely out of their depth most sports journalists have been on EBTs. No wonder, it's a highly specialist field, it took the Supreme Court to decide their status, this is points of law way, way above the heads of the vast majority of us. Tom English can probably explain to you how the British Lions tactics were wrong in the 1st test against New Zealand and he's probably got a good insight into how Glasgow Warriors will fare under their new coach. He might even have opinions worth listening to regarding how the football in Scotland might go this season. But he knows no more about tax law than anyone else who has had to fill out a self assessment form.

 

I wonder if, say a high profile player picks up an injury, English will tell the doctor his diagnosis of the player is wrong? Will he look over the medical records and suggest a different type of surgery perhaps, maybe changes in rehab and physio work?

 

It's the arrogance of them, instead if admitting they really don't understand 99% of what has happened they pretend they do and get shown up for it publicly. He defended his position later too, it's laughable.

 

Edit - Maugham published this earlier for the hard of thinking. Brilliant - https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/

 

Good post,you do understand that english will NEVER waver from his stance,never.

Hes a rebel dog imo------i wont waver from that opinion either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A short note on tax law for Rangers and Celtic fans

 

Jolyon Maugham

41 mins ago

I write to explain a point of law that has occupied much of my twitter feed for the last couple of days. It may help to say that I am a Queen’s Counsel specialising in tax law. And I have no commercial or personal connection to Rangers (I use that name in a vernaculous rather than a legal sense) or its successor entities or (as far as I am aware) anyone connected with the club or those entities.

 

I have said that it is not accurate to describe Rangers’ use of EBTs as “illegal” or “unlawful”. And here is why.

 

You might think about the purpose of tax law as being to draw lines in the sand: fall on one side of the line and your liability will be (lower) x; fall on the other side and it will be (higher) y. Rangers entered into certain transactions which they hoped and (I understand) expected would attract liability x but which the Supreme Court decided attracted liability y. It is not “illegal” or “unlawful” to attract a higher liability than you want. And nor is it illegal or unlawful to transact to try and attract liability x but to fail and, nevertheless, to attract liability y.

 

We self-assess our liability to tax. Putting it another way, HMRC ask us questions in a self-assessment form, we answer them, and those answers have as their consequence that we owe a particular sum in tax. We also promise HMRC that we believe the answers are right.

 

If we give HMRC answers that lead to the conclusion that we owe x in tax and a court later says that our answers were wrong and we owe y in tax that does not establish, on its own, that we have behaved unlawfully or illegally. It is not unlawful or illegal to make an honest mistake.

 

If, in completing the self-assessment form, we gave answers that we did not believe to be right, we would have behaved unlawfully or illegally. But I am not aware of any evidence that Rangers gave answers in its self-assessment form that it did not believe to be right. And nor, so far as I am aware, is this an allegation that HMRC has advanced.

 

What about a situation where Rangers gave misleading answers to HMRC outside the self-assessment form? Certainly it would be very poor behaviour. And I can imagine circumstances in which this might be unlawful. But, on its own, this fact – if fact it is – does not enable the conclusion to be drawn that Rangers has broken any law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You will never stop them,never.

They will say they are entitled to their opinion(which they are).

Personally----i dont give a feck about their opinions.They can shove them.They are wrong,but that wont stop them.

 

I live in the US so I'm not familiar with the standards British press are held to. Is this not something that can be reported to the IPC (I think that's the overseeing agency) much like the Hamilton piece after last the 2016 Scottish Cup in the Daily Rhecord was? Seems like if all these press sources are being untruthful they would be opening themselves up to the same process that was applied then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in the US so I'm not familiar with the standards British press are held to. Is this not something that can be reported to the IPC (I think that's the overseeing agency) much like the Hamilton piece after last the 2016 Scottish Cup in the Daily Rhecord was? Seems like if all these press sources are being untruthful they would be opening themselves up to the same process that was applied then.

 

They're not making any statement of fact as such. In this instance, it's simply opinion that in this case is being offered up by journalists rather than an individual. Covered by free speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not making any statement of fact as such. In this instance, it's simply opinion that in this case is being offered up by journalists rather than an individual. Covered by free speech.

 

Free speech covers a lot. What it does not cover is the responsibility of journalists - not least of institutions like the BBC - to report facts rather than to offer opinion as fact, which Scrote in particular did a few years back and got a slap from the BBC Trust. So if people like Thomson or English or *insert any journo you like* whip up articles and report wrong stuff as fact - and they sure know better, given that it occupied their minds for years - they should be drawn in front of the IPC or whatever orga is responsible. Over here in Germany, the so-called German Press Council checks this out and rest assured, some of those who still pass as journalists in Scotland would be cleaning cars by now.

 

BTW, this is the 21st century and a quick check of the LNS outcome and/or the Supreme Court's ruling using the SEARCH option will yield no results for either unlawful or illegal.

 

Neither does the BBC's own article explaining the outcome of the EBT Commission -> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21617950

 

In relevant official text you only find "unlawfully" once, in the SPFL statement:

 

The SPFL Board of directors has considered carefully the judgement of the Supreme Court in the unsuccessful appeal by the former Rangers Football Club PLC (in liquidation) ("Rangers OldCo") against the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session finding that OldCo acted unlawfully in failing to deduct and pay over to HMRC, PAYE income tax, from payments made by it to EBTs for many of its registered players.

 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/

 

Maybe the club asks the SPFL to remove this wrongly applied word for the sake of clarity?

Edited by der Berliner
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.