[Trusevich]

A statement of fact. It seems that you're the one that struggles with simple terminology.

Comprehension deficit disorder.

[Maroon 1]

A statement of fact. It seems that you're the one that struggles with simple terminology.

Comprehension deficit disorder.

It's my cross Trus, I'm trying to bear it well

[supercooper]

Looks like Freds self imposed exile is over.

[Trusevich]

It's my cross Trus, I'm trying to bear it well

Try harder. 

[edgie]

Just a quick visit guys I know you missed me
To say told you so
and pull up trus for lying again
Trus the post by maroon was right the full first paragraph of the judgement did read
"A scheme involving payments to various trusts set up in respect of executives and footballers employed by the former Rangers Football Club amounted to “a mere redirection of emoluments or earnings” and was accordingly “subject to income tax”."
note "former Rangers Football Club " not "former Rangers Football Club ltd"

nice to see the law knows rangers died
So years of tax evasion guilty
years of lying to the SFA guilty

At least the new club isn't guilty of that
I suspect this post wont pass the mod but hy ho
its a lovely day

[Larry-AV]

From AVillaFan, Scottish Football thread, my answers to questions posed :

A company has the 'legal personality' which enables it to enter into contracts, etc, Dimitri.
The 'stripping titles' and 'admin' are the delusions of fantasists, such as the character Patrick cited. *

What intrigues me is this : who pays the tax ?
If the players' pay slips showed tax deducted, even though it was not, which is what happened with Whyte, then the employer pays, because the tax shown as 'paid' was not paid by the employer.
With the EBTs I do not know what, if anything, was shown as deductions, so I go by the logic of income.
If the monies paid were income, then the relevant income tax will have to be paid by the recipients  of that income.

* Says Chris McLaughlin, Celtic 'fan' and professional fucktard.

[hibeejim21]

The players were covered by side letters that guaranteed the salary.The liability lies with their employer. As they are being liquidated currently,that is now BDO.

So from what i can grasp HMRC will lodge a claim with them. They won't care about the players, BDO might be able to go after murray and the board however.

[Paigntonhibby]

You need to learn the difference between 'club' and 'company'.

You're not the first, and you won't be the last to make that basic error, Moron1. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced you haven't made that error before. Is it deliberate?

Plus, titles can't be stripped because an independent SFA investigation found that no sporting advantage was gained.

You're rubbish at this trolling lark.

---

Formerly the Rangers football club,good to see they recognise the old club is dead,

"Formerly The Rangers Football Club PLC".

Dullard.

no' sure I'm that bothered aboot the argument whether its club/company or newco/oldco, what I think is without doubt,despite what the muppets at the SFA say there must have been a sporting advantage as rangers were able tae afford better players using EBTs than they would otherwise have been able tae. that was surely the whole point o' EBTs

[Trusevich]

Lord Nimmo Smith's independent enquiry found there was no sporting advantage. That's the end of it.

There's no evidence to support the idea that Rangers couldn't have afforded those players without using EBTs, or that those players wouldn't have joined Rangers without them.

And let's not forget that using EBTs wasn't illegal. It was a tax avoidance scheme, not tax evasion.

Boy, some people are desperate for it though.

[Paigntonhibby]

Lord Nimmo Smith's independent enquiry found there was no sporting advantage. That's the end of it.

There's no evidence to support the idea that Rangers couldn't have afforded those players without using EBTs, or that those players wouldn't have joined Rangers without them.

And let's not forget that using EBTs wasn't illegal. It was a tax avoidance scheme, not tax evasion.

Boy, some people are desperate for it though.

lets get this straight, I for one couldnae care less whether cups and titles have tae be given back or no' but how can anybody say there was no sporting advantage ,if they could have afforded these players why bother wi' EBTs. the difference between avoidance and evasion is a wee bit foggy. evade and avoid mean the same thing actually