[hibeejim21]

You scared of knowledge too, Jim?

Not at all.Just no sure someone who dispenses tax avoidance advice to clients for financial gain can be classed 'impartial'. He's been in court v HMRC plenty.

Anyway i heard him on sportsound,he spoke very well but he hardly ripped apart the court of session ruling.

[St Charles Owl]

I have read it, and read a lot of comments that were added by others at the bottom. I don't feel much more educated on EBTs, I sense they are a very complex issues anyway, but it is clear from what he says (and he is a QC on tax law!!) that this whole subject is a complete grey area when it comes to tax avoidance. Like other tax "loopholes" that have always existed, once HMRC gets their teeth into them they will do everything in their power to have these schemes deemed against tax law and the loop hole closed. To me this is what is going on now, HMRC want this scheme to be taxable (after all its their job to prove tax is due and then collect it on behalf of the Government) and the companies that used them (and maybe the individuals as well) want to see their use be allowed. If this decision is not appealed, the HMRC wins and I assume the tax becomes due, if it is appealed and lets say the CoS ruling is overturned, then it is deemed that these schemes do not attract a tax charge. He clearly states this could still go either way depending on whether BDO appeal or not and until it is finally settled and a decision made by a court becomes the last decision made, then even he is unsure whether he is right or not, just as everyone else is.

The thing that also stood out for me was his assertion that this has only become a hot topic because of the fact that its Rangers involved and not ABC Unknown Ltd. This is an emotive subject because of the tribal instincts of not only Rangers fans wanting to defend their club (no matter what in some cases) but also the tribal instinct of rival supporters to do exactly the opposite!!! This is complex tax law where literally we are seeing the law get written (or at least finished) in front of our eyes, something I for one have never ever followed, but because it involves a high profile football club who have in the past sailed too close to the wind (and well beyond in some ways) it becomes a subject we are all interested in the outcome of, and therefore what the consequences should be of the action the directors took. Ultimately though, I would hazard a guess that if a Queen's Counsel on Tax Law is not sure which way this will or even should go, then this small band of merry men we see on Sportsbabble certainly know relatively f uck all about it!!!! Aside from the obvious banter opportunity it presents to all of us in the realm of football rivalries!!!

---

You scared of knowledge too, Jim?

Not at all.Just no sure someone who dispenses tax avoidance advice to clients for financial gain can be classed 'impartial'. He's been in court v HMRC plenty.

Anyway i heard him on sportsound,he spoke very well but he hardly ripped apart the court of session ruling.

And he doesn't rip it apart in his article either, he just seems to think this ruling may not be the final one!!

I agree he is not completely impartial when it comes to what he deems tax avoidance or not, but he is also tasked with making sure his clients stay above the law while using the law to their advantage.  At the end of the day though, who is impartial on this subject??  Its not the media, who swing one way or the other, its not Rangers fans, nor rival fans for obvious reasons, as far as I can see there is nobody who could be classed as impartial on this one!!  But he does say, until the final decision is made, or this becomes the final decision if it is not appealed, then he will continue to "argue" the merits of whether this is tax avoidance or not.  Once the decision is made, his advice to clients will change to reflect that change in the tax laws.

[hibeejim21]

I have read it, and read a lot of comments that were added by others at the bottom.  I don't feel much more educated on EBTs, I sense they are a very complex issues anyway, but it is clear from what he says (and he is a QC on tax law!!) that this whole subject is a complete grey area when it comes to tax avoidance.  Like other tax "loopholes" that have always existed, once HMRC gets their teeth into them they will do everything in their power to have these schemes deemed against tax law and the loop hole closed. To me this is what is going on now, HMRC want this scheme to be taxable (after all its their job to prove tax is due and then collect it on behalf of the Government) and the companies that used them (and maybe the  individuals as well) want to see their use be allowed.  If this decision is not appealed, the  HMRC wins and I assume the tax becomes due, if it is appealed and lets say the CoS ruling is overturned, then it is deemed that these schemes do not attract a tax charge.  He clearly states this could still go either way depending on whether BDO appeal or not and until it is finally settled and a decision made by a court becomes the last decision made, then even he is unsure whether he is right or not, just as everyone else is.

The thing that also stood out for me was his assertion that this has only become a hot topic because of the fact that its Rangers involved and not ABC Unknown Ltd.  This is an emotive subject because of the tribal instincts of not only Rangers fans wanting to defend their club (no matter what in some cases) but also the tribal instinct of rival supporters to do exactly the opposite!!!  This is complex tax law where literally we are seeing the law get written (or at least finished) in front of our eyes, something I for one have never ever followed, but because it involves a high profile football club who have in the past sailed too close to the wind (and well beyond in some ways) it becomes a subject we are all interested in the  outcome of, and therefore what the  consequences should be of the action the directors took.  Ultimately though, I would hazard a guess that if a Queen's Counsel on Tax Law is not sure which way this will or even should go, then this small band of merry men we see on Sportsbabble certainly know relatively f uck all about it!!!!  Aside from the obvious banter opportunity it presents to all of us in the realm of football rivalries!!!

---

You scared of knowledge too, Jim?

Not at all.Just no sure someone who dispenses tax avoidance advice to clients for financial gain can be classed 'impartial'. He's been in court v HMRC plenty.

Anyway i heard him on sportsound,he spoke very well but he hardly ripped apart the court of session ruling.

And he doesn't rip it apart in his article either, he just seems to think this ruling may not be the final one!!

I agree he is not completely impartial when it comes to what he deems tax avoidance or not, but he is also tasked with making sure his clients stay above the law while using the law to their advantage.  At the end of the day though, who is impartial on this subject??  Its not the media, who swing one way or the other, its not Rangers fans, nor rival fans for obvious reasons, as far as I can see there is nobody who could be classed as impartial on this one!!  But he does say, until the final decision is made, or this becomes the final decision if it is not appealed, then he will continue to "argue" the merits of whether this is tax avoidance or not.  Once the decision is made, his advice to clients will change to reflect that change in the tax laws.

That's yer court of sessions job surely ?

[St Charles Owl]

I have read it, and read a lot of comments that were added by others at the bottom.  I don't feel much more educated on EBTs, I sense they are a very complex issues anyway, but it is clear from what he says (and he is a QC on tax law!!) that this whole subject is a complete grey area when it comes to tax avoidance.  Like other tax "loopholes" that have always existed, once HMRC gets their teeth into them they will do everything in their power to have these schemes deemed against tax law and the loop hole closed. To me this is what is going on now, HMRC want this scheme to be taxable (after all its their job to prove tax is due and then collect it on behalf of the Government) and the companies that used them (and maybe the  individuals as well) want to see their use be allowed.  If this decision is not appealed, the  HMRC wins and I assume the tax becomes due, if it is appealed and lets say the CoS ruling is overturned, then it is deemed that these schemes do not attract a tax charge.  He clearly states this could still go either way depending on whether BDO appeal or not and until it is finally settled and a decision made by a court becomes the last decision made, then even he is unsure whether he is right or not, just as everyone else is.

The thing that also stood out for me was his assertion that this has only become a hot topic because of the fact that its Rangers involved and not ABC Unknown Ltd.  This is an emotive subject because of the tribal instincts of not only Rangers fans wanting to defend their club (no matter what in some cases) but also the tribal instinct of rival supporters to do exactly the opposite!!!  This is complex tax law where literally we are seeing the law get written (or at least finished) in front of our eyes, something I for one have never ever followed, but because it involves a high profile football club who have in the past sailed too close to the wind (and well beyond in some ways) it becomes a subject we are all interested in the  outcome of, and therefore what the  consequences should be of the action the directors took.  Ultimately though, I would hazard a guess that if a Queen's Counsel on Tax Law is not sure which way this will or even should go, then this small band of merry men we see on Sportsbabble certainly know relatively f uck all about it!!!!  Aside from the obvious banter opportunity it presents to all of us in the realm of football rivalries!!!

---

You scared of knowledge too, Jim?

Not at all.Just no sure someone who dispenses tax avoidance advice to clients for financial gain can be classed 'impartial'. He's been in court v HMRC plenty.

Anyway i heard him on sportsound,he spoke very well but he hardly ripped apart the court of session ruling.

And he doesn't rip it apart in his article either, he just seems to think this ruling may not be the final one!!

I agree he is not completely impartial when it comes to what he deems tax avoidance or not, but he is also tasked with making sure his clients stay above the law while using the law to their advantage.  At the end of the day though, who is impartial on this subject??  Its not the media, who swing one way or the other, its not Rangers fans, nor rival fans for obvious reasons, as far as I can see there is nobody who could be classed as impartial on this one!!  But he does say, until the final decision is made, or this becomes the final decision if it is not appealed, then he will continue to "argue" the merits of whether this is tax avoidance or not.  Once the decision is made, his advice to clients will change to reflect that change in the tax laws.

That's yer court of sessions job surely ?

Absolutely right, and as we stand the latest decision makes these schemes taxable, not illegal, but taxable.  If this is appealed, as most seem to think it will be then there is one more court that will rule and if I am right, that will be the final decision as it can not go any higher(?).  After that its up to the football authorities to decide what happens in their part of the world, but I am not sure they can retrospectively take any action anyway.

[Larry-AV]

Jolyon Maugham has consistently said that what is in dispute is the amount of tax that is due. This amount will depend on how the monies paid into the EBT scheme are defined ... as income or as loans, to which the appropriate tax regime will then be applied.

It amazes me that folks are still complaining that Rangers retained more of their money by avoiding tax ... what else is a tax avoidance scheme for if not for that ?
I wonder how many folks who are complaining about Rangers have themselves avoided tax ?
Anyone would think that EBTs were for the exclusive use of Rangers and Rangers alone !

Turning to Mike Ashley, I think he will launch a two-pronged attack.
As Worthing posted (above), Ashley is challenging the SFA's verdict on Dave King being a 'fit and proper person'.
The other prong will be on the resolution before the AGM to stop persons with dual interests (in football clubs) voting on matters affecting Rangers. This resolution has been proposed to bring Rangers' rules into line with those of the SFA on dual ownership and to prevent any further fines from the SFA in this matter.
However, as a shareholder Ashley has his rights and I would think those rights under Law would trump any SFA rules or resolution that restricted his rights as a shareholder.

So, if Ashley cannot get the SFA's ruling on Dave King reversed, he still has another string to his bow, with which I think he would win, whether he challenges the SFA, Rangers, or both.

Add this article : Skysports - Mike Ashley has challenged the SFA over its approval of Dave King

[hibeejim21]

What jolyon maugham says is irrelevant compared to the inner house of the court of session in Scotland. I'm amazed people struggle with this. This is the impartial ruling that is fixed under Scots law.

All else is wallpaper.

[Trusevich]

Pending appeal.

[St Charles Owl]

What jolyon maugham says is irrelevant compared to the inner house of the court of session in Scotland. I'm amazed people struggle with this. This is the impartial ruling that is fixed under Scots law.

All else is wallpaper.

As Maugham stated if this ruling is not appealed then it stands and is what it is.  If it is appealed as Trus said, then we will have to wait for the next verdict to be handed down, at which point that will become the ruling.  Is there a window of opportunity for BDO to decide whether to appeal, if so how long do they have??

[hibeejim21]

Hmrc appointed bdo as liquidators,they are also the creditors of oldco. Make of that what you will.

[0762]

Meanwhile Mike Ashley questions the SFA's authority to judge King as being a credible, 'squeaky clean' person (a joke!!) who is in charge of RFC and challenges it's officials in the Court of Session - the Ibrox farce continues with no end in sight!! So on 4 Feb 2016, Ashley's words, PROVE IT, will likely be emblazoned across the front doors of the Court of Session!!