Watch OldCo 'big tax case' live today and tomorrow

[der Berliner 3,449]

eye watering amounts on some absolute shit on that list

 

and judging by last summer's business we've learned absolutely nothing

 

We spent roughy 1/5 of what the Yahoos threw after their manager. With an already bloated squad. And we're not exactly a desaster on the field.

[jhunter 0]

We spent roughy 1/5 of what the Yahoos threw after their manager. With an already bloated squad. And we're not exactly a desaster on the field.

 

you been watching a different season from me?

 

the waste at Rangers is astronomical, its like its ingrained

[boabie 230]

Did the tax expert think we'd win this case?

 

The real "expert" who said he'd not been following what was happening retweeted the message from another tax guy who said things weren't going too well on the first day at court.

[RANGERRAB 3,392]

The real "expert" who said he'd not been following what was happening retweeted the message from another tax guy who said things weren't going too well on the first day at court.

 

And the guy who said things weren't going too well was likely to be a yahoo ??

[boabie 230]

And the guy who said things weren't going too well was likely to be a yahoo ??

 

No idea mate. But I followed every second of the case in court and thought we did well. Then, I'm just a common 5-8 who has deep suspicions of the politics at play when we have governments determined to look for an excuse to raid English football where the real money is.

[der Berliner 3,449]

you been watching a different season from me?

 

the waste at Rangers is astronomical, its like its ingrained

 

We're in the wrong thread, but this has been done to death and, no disrespect, the above seems to me like only taking team performances into account, but hardly the surroundings (money, market, available players), the fact that we have just been promoted etc., while apparently expecting something far more dramatic than what was reasonable given the circumstances.

 

As I said, done to death and I won't go into it again.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

And the guy who said things weren't going too well was likely to be a yahoo ??

 

That tweet was retweeted by J Maughan when the SC had not long began, i watched it for the first couple of hours it was mostly about case histories by Thornhill. I'm not a well versed in law ,but how anyone could have come to that conclusion so early ? Sounds to me like someone was biased.

[Darthter 542]

That tweet was retweeted by J Maughan when the SC had not long began, i watched it for the first couple of hours it was mostly about case histories by Thornhill. I'm not a well versed in law ,but how anyone could have come to that conclusion so early ? Sounds to me like someone was biased.

 

Was gonna say similar.....When was the tweet posted???

RFC QC was talking from 10-12.30, then HMRC QC from 12.30-4 (with 1 hr for lunch)

[Bluedell 5,413]

The retweet was made during the first morning. The original one seemed to be a fair enough thing to say at that point given Hodge's attitude to Thornhill.

[der Berliner 3,449]

Another opinion:

 

 

Full Time: Rangers in the Supreme Court

 

16th March 2017

 

The Supreme Court has today finished hearing arguments in the ongoing litigation concerning employee benefit trusts (‘EBTs’) established by companies connected with Glasgow Rangers Football Club.

 

As we reported in 2015, the Court of Session (‘CoS’) found in favour of HMRC at the last hearing.

 

As before, counsel for HMRC advanced two main arguments:

 

If the employees had arranged for their salaries to be paid to someone else (say, their husband, wife or Aunt Agatha) that wouldn’t have changed the nature of the payment, it would still have been taxable employment income, subject to PAYE and NIC when the payment was made – the payment to the EBT was no different;

The terms of the trust gave the employees immediate access to the assets of the EBT, which meant that we should look through the trust arrangement and tax the employees as if they’d received cash.

 

Along the way, counsel for HMRC effectively implied that salary sacrifice arrangements of any kind are not effective for tax purposes and that both HMRC’s guidance on salary sacrifice and the rationale for the changes to the taxation of salary sacrifice announced in the Budget are misconceived.

 

Counsel for Rangers countered these arguments by pointing out that the findings of fact in the first tier tribunal contradicted key elements of HMRC’s argument and that, as a matter of law, the Benefits Code tells us how benefits in kind should be taxed; the argument advanced on behalf of HMRC would result in any benefit in kind being treated as if it was salary instead.

 

No judgments were handed down today, we should expect these in late April or May.

 

It is, as always, very difficult to make an assessment of the mood of the court, but the impression given is that the court was unwilling to entertain HMRC’s argument that the employee had immediate access to the EBT assets and was less than wholly convinced that their arguments on diverted earnings were correct.

 

http://www.gabelletax.com/blog/2017/03/16/full-time-rangers-in-the-supreme-court/