Bluedell 5,679 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Corporate Tax avoidance/evasion is a grey area as shown by the big tax case, which was not clear cut and can be extremely complicated. These things can often come down to interpretation and one tax inspector can look on things differently from another. I don't see that tax authorities disagreeing with a complicated tax scheme should preclude directors of that company from holding office elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Isn't the fact that SARS themselves are facing internal corruption charges (for how they handled such cases) a mitigating factor in itself? Not 'fit and proper' because of clear issues he had with a potentially corrupt organisation currently under enquiry? That would be a farce. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,803 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 The truth is Meekingsgate was a mini-tornado which was entirely of their own making. They created it with their own incompetence and by the time it had bounced along Hampden’s sixth floor, it had not just battered Stewart Regan and compliance officer Tony McGlennan but also exposed both men, leaving them looking vaguely ridiculous. Entirely of their own making? What dross is that? Any half-wit could see how the refs (both) came to their conclusion. What did Regan wrong here? The CO went out of his skin, of course, trying to get the player done despite the incident does not even fall under his job-description. But what do you expect from the second Yahoo-minded chap in a row that takes up this job, Keith? THAT would have been a question worth asking. Or why Meekings was cited, but Zaluskas not? Or Guidetti vs Hearts. Amongst so many other incidents. As for the King stuff. The SFA have their own rules and guidelines and are not really something law-driven like a court et al. They are probably fully in their rights to deem King's RSA history naughty enough to say no to him taking up a job at Ibrox. Under their own, vague guidelines. Would that be in the best interest of Rangers, the SFA and the game in Scotland in general? Hardly. It would of course be in the interest of some, nah, one rival club in Scotland. But we would not get to any more "paranoia driven" conclusions, would we? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,732 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 (edited) Corporate Tax avoidance/evasion is a grey area as shown by the big tax case, which was not clear cut and can be extremely complicated. These things can often come down to interpretation and one tax inspector can look on things differently from another. I don't see that tax authorities disagreeing with a complicated tax scheme should preclude directors of that company from holding office elsewhere. You really don't get it or don't want to. King entered a plea of guilty in terms of Section 75 but he was sentenced in terms of section 105a of the Criminal Procedures Act. Tax avoidance isn't an offence in South Africa so how could he be convicted if he was not guilty of committing a crime. And these charges were not dropped. This is just another piece of spin put on the judgement by the King fan club. If you read the NPA statement it says "the State decided not to pursue" which is a very different situation. Under the Statute of Limitations the State can resurrect the 300 + criminal charges he faced within the next 20 years and lets not forget some of these charges were fraud, money laundering, racketeering and many more offences. Edited April 27, 2015 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 The sfa can't afford another court defeat. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 You really don't get it or don't want to. King entered a plea of guilty in terms of Section 75 but he was sentenced in terms of section 105a of the Criminal Procedures Act. Tax avoidance isn't an offence in South Africa so how could he be convicted if he was not guilty of committing a crime. And these harges were not dropped. This is just another piece of spin put on the judgement by the King fan club. If you read the NPA statement it says "the State decided not to pursue" which is a very different situation. Under the Statute of Limitations the State can resurrect the 300 + criminal charges he faced within the next 20 years and lets not forget some of these charges were fraud, money laundering, racketeering and many more offences. None of which were perused. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,732 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 None of which were perused. I presume you mean pursued. Yes but they still can be pursued within the next 20 years 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 I presume you mean pursued. Yes but they still can be pursued within the next 20 years Or not. For all we know they have zero evidence of the crimes. Why are we worrying about things that we both know will never happen. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,732 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Or not. For all we know they have zero evidence of the crimes. Why are we worrying about things that we both know will never happen. Because the SFA will take into consideration his 41 tax convictions he pled guilty to. Look if King passes the SFA FAPP test and invests that would be great but I've never been convinced King is the messiah he's been made out to be 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 You really don't get it or don't want to. King entered a plea of guilty in terms of Section 75 but he was sentenced in terms of section 105a of the Criminal Procedures Act. Sorry but I don't know what the sections are and therefore don't know what point you're trying to make. Tax avoidance isn't an offence in South Africa so how could he be convicted if he was not guilty of committing a crime. And these charges were not dropped. This is just another piece of spin put on the judgement by the King fan club. If you read the NPA statement it says "the State decided not to pursue" which is a very different situation. Under the Statute of Limitations the State can resurrect the 300 + criminal charges he faced within the next 20 years and lets not forget some of these charges were fraud, money laundering, racketeering and many more offences. Presumably tax evasion is a crime in SA though? As for the other stuff, he's not been found guilty so don't see the relevance. I do know that tax authorities can play dirty at times and some of the stuff they can get up to is horrendous. I have no idea if that's the case here but given the case that's been raised against SARS I wouldn't be surprised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.