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

[D'Artagnan 173]

Haven't claimed they would, though I firmly believe Murray personally should (fund an appeal).

 

Spot on FS.

Edited November 4, 2015 by D'Artagnan

[RANGERRAB 3,744]

Haven't claimed they would, though I firmly believe Murray personally should (fund an appeal).

 

Could he do this?

[forlanssister 3,114]

Could he do this?

 

Anybody could iirc.

[Little General 80]

Could he do this?

 

a third party is already funding it.

 

From the last BDO creditors report Nov 14

 

Following receipt of Counsel’s updated opinion following the UTT proceedings, the Joint

Liquidators remain of the view that the Company’s position in respect of the EBT claim is robust,

and intend to be represented at both the FTT and the Court of Session hearings.

 

To date, the cost to the Liquidation of participating in the EBT proceedings has been minimal,

with the costs being funded by a third party. Going forward, the third party has asked for the

Liquidation estate to make a contribution to the future costs of the process. Having liaised with

the Committee, we are now seeking to agree an apportionment of costs acceptable to both

parties.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

a third party is already funding it.

 

Might the "third party" be the much maligned Murray?

[barca72 440]

If you look at todays ruling they' date=' the 3 judges, appear to have totally ignored previous findings and rulings from the foregoing tribunals, as well as the decisions arrived at in Dextra Accessories ([2005'] STC 1111) and Sempra Metals ([2007] STC 1559). Instead they appear to have cut rhough all normal legal precedent relying to set the test against nothing more than "common sense".

 

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1514/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young, heard that ...

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/34/498/The-Hon-Lord-Drummond-Young-(James-Edward-Drummond-Young)

Judiciary of Scotland

The Rt Hon Lord Drummond Young (James Edward Drummond Young)

Lord Drummond Young was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Courts in 2001 and he was appointed to the Inner House in June 2013.

He is a graduate of the University of Cambridge (B.A., Sidney Sussex College), Harvard University (LL.M., Joseph Hodges Choate Memorial Fellow) and the University of Edinburgh (LL.B.). He was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates1 in 1976 and was Standing Junior Counsel2 to the Department of Industry from 1984 to 1986 and to the Inland Revenue* from 1986 to 1988.

Lord Drummond Young was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1988. He served as Advocate Depute3 from 1999 to 2001. Publications include "The Law of Corporate Insolvency in Scotland" (with J.B. St. Clair, 3rd ed. 2004) and Stair Encyclopaedia of Scots Law (1989). He has been the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission since 2007.

1 The Scottish Bar.

2 Standing Juniors are appointed by the Lord Advocate to advise and represent government departments.

3 Counsel for the prosecution in criminal cases.

* The Inland Revenue was merged with HM Customs and Excise to form HM Revenue and Customs which came into existence on 18 April 2005. The former Inland Revenue thus became part of HM Revenue and Customs.

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/Upload/Documents/StatementofPriciplesofJudicialEthicsrevisedMay2015.pdf

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS FOR THE SCOTTISH JUDICIARY

Revised May 2015

 

5. THE PRINCIPLE OF IMPARTIALITY

5.4 Where there exists some reason, apart from pecuniary interest, why a judge should not handle a case on its objective merits, or may reasonably appear to be unable to do so, he or she should recuse himself or herself. Thus, for example, a meaningful acquaintance with a litigant { HMRC }, or a person known to be a significant witness in the case might constitute such an objection.

 

Since they ruled against legal precedent it makes you wonder if they had a mindset going in.

No doubt the fact Drummond Young represented HMRC, and Menzies was the same for the Admiralty, twenty-odd years ago is insignificant today.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Quelle suprise barca

[JohnMc 2,801]

Personally I hope this isn't appealed and that's it now over. There is no 'winning' on this, even if the case had gone against HMRC again we still lost. Our playing squad was shredded, our reputation trashed globally and our club destroyed. We suffered Craig Whyte, Charles Green and Mike Ashley, he's still not gone away and the other two are still capable of inflicting damage on us. We published figures today showing we lost over £7 million last year, we lost even more the year before that. We lost guys, whatever those judges said this morning we bloody lost.

 

Aside from the sheer bloody hurt those EBTs have been responsible for they are an immoral affront to decency, legal or otherwise. Why shouldn't millionaire footballers pay more income tax? Why aren't we cursing the greed culture that clearly permeated at our club at the time and ultimately brought it down and why aren't we doing everything we can to make sure it never infects our club again? Whether they were technically legal or specifically used in accordance with proper guidelines it doesn't matter now, the damage is done and can't be reversed.

 

We can expend a lot of energy discussing this or we can accept that there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Does it give some people an opportunity to go looking for a pound of flesh and others the chance to pontificate about financial doping and so on, hell yeah. So what? It's done and can't be undone.

 

It's time to look forward again, not back. We survived after all, they threw everything they could find at us and we survived. We fought with each other and we survived. We were raped and pillaged from within, often with the tacit and unquestioning support of a lot of the fanbase, but we survived.

We've a team again who are at last worthy of our jersey, we've a manager who inspires us and excites us, all of our energies should be going into building a future, a future a rich shareholder would like to further disrupt. We've other more important battles to fight now, this one has past and we lost it, big time. Accept that, learn from it and move forward again. Let them come for our trophies, let them call us cheats, it'll pass and I'm not persuaded their's an appetite for it at any level above internet moron or failing columnist.

 

Let's not lose site of what is actually important today.

 

It's an exciting time to be a bear again, let's focus on that.

[Little General 80]

Might the "third party" be the much maligned Murray?

 

no idea BH, but he should be imo.

[RANGERRAB 3,744]

Might the "third party" be the much maligned Murray?

 

Who is this 'third party' ? Anyone know?