Watch OldCo 'big tax case' live today and tomorrow

[Uilleam 5,774]

The only thing missing from that fairy tale is a couple of blind orphan kids and somebody on crutches.

 

The paranoia continues though - " Someone who has not been wasting his time is the anonymous Rangers Tax Case blogger. Following on from his much deserved award of the Orwell Prize, he has been offered, and accepted, an Orwell Prize Fellowship. My congratulations are sincere and heartfelt. However one should never lose sight of the fact that he had to remain anonymous in what passes for a civilised society in Scotland. A society where a sect with the social mores of the late 17th Century openly express their antipathy to Irish Catholic Scots with impunity. They blatantly celebrate ‘being up to their knees in fenian blood’ and sing the proscribed ‘Famine Song’. The majority of Police Scotland sing along with them in the police clubs and their Orange and Masonic lodges.

Make no mistake about it. The insidious influence of Freemasonry is so widespread in Police Scotland that it is effectively run by Grand Masters. They look after their own. "

 

He must watch coverage of different masonic meetings than those I attend. TBB at a lodge meeting ? Our past two masters would just love that one.

 

Well, the much feted "Rangers' Tax Case" blogger, may very well have been engaged in the illegal dissemination of illegally obtained information. Quite how that is praiseworthy, far less prizeworthy is beyond me. It does require the maintenance of anonymity, however.

 

The blogger JJ is clearly preaching to the converted, or the brainwashed, perhaps. I have noticed, on many occasions, over many years, that those of a Romist background tend to believe that Freemasons and Orangemen are one and the same thing. (Any differences between the various Loyalist Institutions are completely outwith their purview, of course.)

When confronted with this level of ignorance, I ask them to explain the prevalence of freemasonry in Southern -Latin, Catholic- Europe, and South America, and the existence of , predominantly, Jewish Lodges. They fail, as a rule.

[craig 5,199]

I have not been to a masonic meeting in 40 years and wouldn't even know how to get in now but I can never remember any party songs being sung. The masonic is not about that and we even had some Catholics in our lodge as far as I can remember.

 

One of our esteemed past masters was a strong practicing RC. Admittedly we didn't have a lot of Catholics in our lodge but our village was predominantly protestant anyway, so it was no great surprise. But to have a past master who was a practicing RC shows how much nonsense you read about the Masons.

 

I haven't been in a while either - which is a shame - the last meeting I was at was my last meeting as RWM - I made the chair in our lodge when I was 26 - I used to love lecturing. I should probably get back into it.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Getting back to the case I thought the arguments, if i understood them correctly, that the Trust beneficiaries could be persons other than family therefore might be regarded as a non taxable salary sacrifice and that the payments to the Trust are exempt benefits in kind were quite strong.

 

It was already established that those concerned had no entitlement to receive anything from the Trusts.

 

Essentially the HMRC argument is that the whole exercise is a sham.

 

It will be interesting to see whether common sense or the the technicalities prevail.

[pete 2,499]

I feel pretty positive about this. Then again that might be a negative.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I feel pretty positive about this. Then again that might be a negative.

 

I'll be quite surprised if we lose this.

 

On the basis of the current tax law and precedents (some of which he was involved in creating) as put forward by our QC, we have or appear to have a strong case, which, it is worth remembering has been twice upheld in the lower courts. Also the facts as determined by the First Tier are not in dispute, a fact that our man kept hammering.

 

It seems to me that HMRC want the court to rewrite the law to meet their interpretation and that is something that courts are usually loathe to do.

[barca72 440]

I'll be quite surprised if we lose this.

 

On the basis of the current tax law and precedents (some of which he was involved in creating) as put forward by our QC, we have or appear to have a strong case, which, it is worth remembering has been twice upheld in the lower courts. Also the facts as determined by the First Tier are not in dispute, a fact that our man kept hammering.

 

It seems to me that HMRC want the court to rewrite the law to meet their interpretation and that is something that courts are usually loathe to do.

 

I hope you're correct about the courts loathing, however, it is worth noting that we live in different times in today's world.

[SteveC 150]

I'll be quite surprised if we lose this.

 

On the basis of the current tax law and precedents (some of which he was involved in creating) as put forward by our QC, we have or appear to have a strong case, which, it is worth remembering has been twice upheld in the lower courts. Also the facts as determined by the First Tier are not in dispute, a fact that our man kept hammering.

 

It seems to me that HMRC want the court to rewrite the law to meet their interpretation and that is something that courts are usually loathe to do.

 

Yes, usually. You just know in you heart for whom they are most likely to make an exception, however.

[Bluedell 5,471]

I'll be quite surprised if we lose this.

 

On the basis of the current tax law and precedents (some of which he was involved in creating) as put forward by our QC, we have or appear to have a strong case, which, it is worth remembering has been twice upheld in the lower courts. Also the facts as determined by the First Tier are not in dispute, a fact that our man kept hammering.

 

It seems to me that HMRC want the court to rewrite the law to meet their interpretation and that is something that courts are usually loathe to do.

 

I don't believe it's add simple as that. Where does the current law and precedents sit on the existence of side letters, for example?

[pete 2,499]

I don't believe it's add simple as that. Where does the current law and precedents sit on the existence of side letters, for example?

 

Were the side letters mentioned in court? I never watched it all but I never heard them mentioned any time I listened. HMRC are just determined to get it through that the benefits were earnings so as they can go after other clubs who don't have side letters. This is not only about Rangers it is setting a precedent to go after the rest. There will be a lot of people praying Rangers win.

[boabie 230]

Were the side letters mentioned in court? I never watched it all but I never heard them mentioned any time I listened. HMRC are just determined to get it through that the benefits were earnings so as they can go after other clubs who don't have side letters. This is not only about Rangers it is setting a precedent to go after the rest. There will be a lot of people praying Rangers win.

 

The whole of HMRC's case rests on whether the benefits should be treated as earnings. Our side spent 2 days saying they shouldn't and continually made reference to the FTT who said they were not.