Court of Session rules in favour of HMRC + Rangers Issue Statement

[D'Artagnan 173]

Why is it daft?

 

 

Should we dispense for the need to refer to case law BD & just apply the test of "common sense" to every legal debate ?

[boabie 230]

Should we dispense for the need to refer to case law BD & just apply the test of "common sense" to every legal debate ?

 

There have been judges who have been quoted as stating that cases rely on "law" and have nothing to do with "justice". Yesterdays announcement throws that right out of the window. The law is on its ass if judges start determining that common sense is how they should reach decisions rather than what has been proven during any hearing.

[chilledbear 16]

Taken from FF, re programme on Radio Scotland this morning.

 

'Missed his name but clearly very surprised at the decision and highlighted the fact that two rounds of tax judges had been overruled by the non-tax judges.

Finished by calling it unsound.'

 

'The guy was a Solicitor Advocate from Pinsent Masons. Made some excellent points. Surely an appeal to the Supreme Court.'

 

Then a post from Vidmar.

 

'I'm glad this is being highlighted. Reading the decision, it's painfully obvious the Judges had made up their minds before any submissions. They reference Dr Poon - the FTT dissenter, and non-legally qualified - multiple times but don't mention the other two QCs whatsoever. The submissions by Roddy Dunlop on behalf of RFC are given about a paragraph!

 

They go on to accept the payments were loans and discretionary but take the view they should still have been taxed.

 

I hope BDO appeal. There seems to be a lot of confusion in tax circles over this decision which has come completely from left field.'

[boabie 230]

I am sure we gan agree to differ, Boabie, but I would submit I'm not alone on here, though clearly in a minority.

 

However, it would seem that I have already been proved correct in terms of the SPFL.

 

There's no way I would fall out with a fellow bear on a simple difference of opinion BH. However I would take what the SPFL have been reported as saying with a huge pinch of salt. Reports elsewhere have the SPFL and SFA "standing back waiting on the fines appeal decision". If that one goes against us both those organisations will be steamrollered and I fully anticipate harsh sanctions against us.

[Scott7 6,170]

The "common sense" approach has an initial attraction (see my facetious post #42) but the question is "whose common sense?"

 

The trick is to apply common sense to the interpretation of the statute, regulations and precedent.

 

The "common sense" notion is akin to the application of Equity which English judges are quite keen on and most of the Supreme Court judges are English so the appeal might be starting under handicap.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Should we dispense for the need to refer to case law BD & just apply the test of "common sense" to every legal debate ?

 

Case law is referred to, as is legislation.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Case law is referred to, as is legislation.

 

But not yesterdays ruling BD - the test they applied is one of "common sense"

[Bluedell 5,679]

But not yesterdays ruling BD - the test they applied is one of "common sense"

 

The detailed findings refers to case law. Have you read it? It does mention common sense 3 times buit also refers to case law and legislation on many occasions.

 

I think that Vidmar's post refered to above is very relevant, but it seems incorrect to say that they dispensed with case law.

[D'Artagnan 173]

The detailed findings refers to case law. Have you read it? It does mention common sense 3 times buit also refers to case law and legislation on many occasions.

 

I think that Vidmar's post refered to above is very relevant, but it seems incorrect to say that they dispensed with case law.

 

Im referring to their decision making process, and how they appear to have qualified it BD which appears to hang on an application of common sense.

 

 

What did you think of this line in the conclusion BD - given the likely costs involved ?

 

We will reserve the question of expenses in view of the history of the appeals.

Edited November 5, 2015 by D'Artagnan

[BEARGER 1,830]

@alextomo: because Rangers themselves said EBTs were for hiring players they otherwise could not afford

 

Is this true? Did anyone at Rangers say this publicly ?