boabie

Looking online he would also appear to be a tax guy with plenty to say with regard to the current case -

A fake twitter account maybe?

No. It's genuine Rab. He's with the taxpayers alliance or similar and what he tweeted was picked up and re-tweeted by some noted tax expert. Many then misunderstood and implied that the expert had said our erchies were oot the windae.

It was the list given in that DR article of ages gone by.

Yeh, no doubt from the same source as all the other tax case papers. I wonder when somebody will get arrested for that one.

Today was the first time I'd heard McLeans name mentioned too.

Tommy McLean doesn't appear on that list mate yet his payment was debated in court today.

As usual the whole world tax experts on every sellik forum put their own slant on things -

" In his last few sentences Mr Thornhill asked the court to reverse the Scottish Inner Court decision in respect of issues 1 and 2 but acceded to finding 3

The Chair responded to this key concession by asking him if this meant he was accepting that PAYE was due on the Sub Trustees individual funds

He said yes

Meaning Rangers accept that EBT holders must pay tax and NI on the funds deposited into their trust fund by Rangers. "

They see this as "Rangers" throwing their staff under a bus.

You would think that being so versed in all things financial these clowns would know that BDO are not acting on behalf of MIH, Murray, Rangers or its staff.

Also that those who did receive monies from such trusts have already been targeted thanks to actions at the last Budget Day and nothing is going to save them from having to pay. Mr Thornhill definitely would be aware of that.

I see Warburton is saying there is a legal process going on regarding his departure from Rangers.http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/10803894/warburton-privilege-to-manage-rangers

He's also saying he only heard from Notts "in the past few days."

Lying bassa.

Same 2 teams in the Challenge Cup final soon too.

Almost all Rangers fans except me will say it was not a penalty and almost all Celtic fans will say it was a penalty.

 

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of non old firm fans.

Two former referees said it was possibly a penalty but that they understand why it was not given - the referee couldn't see what had happened.

That's it all over. We await the result.

Thornhill now finished but makes an important point when he heads off the enemy who earlier said they would submit WRITTEN points later. Thornhill says he wants to see the paperwork before it goes to the judges.

Not as blunt as that but he covered it well.

Who's Aunt Agatha & what position does she play???

She must be loaded !

It's a name they are using for "an example" of a person/employee/relative/whatever who benefited from the scheme.

I got away with that (or got away with that one) (if he said that) is not an admission of guilt?

 

I agree that 99 or well 95 times out of 100 most referees would have given a penalty and I think he bottled it because it was last minute. Earlier in the game it would have been given.

Correct. It is not an admission of guilt for the reasons I gave. Against the scum at the scumhut - and for no other reason - the penalty would normally be given.

The referee in no way "bottled it". Quite simply, he couldn't see it. And as you should know fine well, you can't give a decision for something you didn't [couldn't possibly] see.

The teams have taken the field. No sign of the referee.

Just to be clear, was Rogers not alleging what Hill said as he was leaving the pitch; but the comments you attribute to Hill were said later (perhaps because he knows that he shouldn't have made the admission and more to the point perhaps that Rogers was out of order to quote him, like giving away dressing room questions)?

 

Please don't jump all over me, i'm just asking the question.

Coming off the pitch Hill said to Rodgers, " I got away with that one." That is no admission of guilt.

A Rangers defender not being accused guilty of a penalty at the scumdome is imo certainly "getting away with it".

99 times out of a hundred a ref would have [wrongly] awarded a penalty for the tackle.

Any referee from that position saying he saw a penalty would quite simply be lying.

In my opinion if Dundee Scumbags don't come up this year they'll disappear altogether.

Unless this proposed new BT football coverage deal is structured so they get a few more quid.

Totally agree that Columbo has spent 2 days and 40 different ways just to say they were part of their wages. He keeps saying "If you ask the players they will tell you that but he has shown no written proof that they would actually say that. The only thing he had was an e-mail from McLelland(?) to Bain asking why his wages were not being paid into the trust. I am no expert but it looks like the Rangers lawyers ripped their case apart. HMRC must be hoping for a common sense verdict.

Yesterday he said in reference to McLelland, "When asked what would have happened had he not been made part of the scheme and able to draw money from it he replied, 'I would have left' "

Professional beggar and full time fool JJ makes this point when giving his slant on todays proceedings -

"Mr Dunlop, who is a member of Mr Thornhill’s team, then makes reference to an EBT received by Tommy McLean whose name was never disclosed by Mark Daly of the BBC. McLean joins Souness as a beneficiary long after they have left Rangers employment. In Souness’ case it was a bung for buying from Rangers. Was the same true of McLean in 1996-1998? Did he receive an EBT bung to facilitate a transfer, or will he disingenuously claim, as Souness did, that he was engaged in sourcing players after the fact. "

Er................ Tommy McLean was head of youth development at Rangers in 2001.

Break for lunch. Thornhill back up at 2pm and says he'll be about another half an hour talking.

I liked Dunlops earlier point where he was on about HMRC moving the goalposts - " If the plan says 'repayable in 80 years' can HMRC alter that to say 'it really means payable in 80 days'"

I think he's playing a dangerous game, close to scoring an own goal re benefits in kind.

As far as I can see BH he has spent 2 days saying that the scheme was NOT "benefits in kind". He's been quoting what seems like half of UK law establishing that it's not.

Thornhill now saying that there were laws in place at the time if HMRC wanted to prosecute for the scheme being misused. They didn't do so and much later applied a new law retrospectively.

Got it now, whose that speaking?

Thornhill .

Thornhill saying HMRC deliberately set aside 17 days of evidence in the first tier tribunal and decided to say "Dr Poon" was correct when she said, "Forget the law, I know what was really going on here."

Our sub, Dunlop is playing a blinder.

 

HMRC's position is "untenable".

 

Prosecution now making submissions.

Got that wrong. Thornhill back on his feet.

Our sub, Dunlop is playing a blinder.

HMRC's position is "untenable".

Prosecution now making submissions.