Darthter 542 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 This morning I have written to Stewart Regan at the SFA. The statement they released yesterday with regards to the Supreme Court decision treats the rest of Scottish Football with total disdain. I don’t know who is going to do it, but I hope someone can organise the rest of the supporters of all the honest teams within Scottish Football to get up and challenge the likes of Regan to do what is right for all of Scottish Football. We can’t continue to be to be treated in this abhorrent manner by the very people who are employed to represent us all, it’s our money that pays the wages of guys like Regan and that other clown McRae, just as it was our money that paid for Campbell Ogilvie and all the other Brethren. The fight starts now, I sincerely hope bloggers like James Forrest can get the rest of the supporters in Scottish Football to stand up for what is right. I also hope that all the other honest teams in Scotland follow Celtic’s lead and release a statement with regards to the Supreme Court decision. Mr Regan, I read you statement this morning regarding the decision by the Supreme Court to deny the appeal by Rangers 2012 in regards to the “Big Tax Case” it came as no surprise that you once again are guilty of dereliction of duty, you have become a boil on the backside of Scottish Football. I would have thought it would have been in the best interests of yourself and the rest of Scottish Football to have a new enquiry which would be transparent and all the relevant fact would be available. I also believe that you should have no part to play in this enquiry as you have already been either duped to the highest level possible, or you colluded in the lies that were told. You along with Campbell Ogilvie and Andrew Dickson should be in the dock for the way you all handled the initial enquiry. As I said to you before, more than one person is guilty of being less than honest, are you one of those persons? The effect of the Rangers payment policy was felt all over Scottish Football. Teams were denied titles, teams were denied cups, and teams were probably relegated and suffered great financial hardship because of it. We will probably never know the total consequences of their cheating. Rangers were not only guilty of cheating all the other honest teams in Scotland, they were also guilty of cheating all the teams they played against in European competitions as well, and you by association are guilty by allowing that to happen. Lord Nimmo Smith said in his judgment that no sporting advantage was gained, but that was based on the assumption of the DOS/EBT schemes being deemed to be legal, that’s if he was even provided with all the facts. Yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court blows that out of the water, a sporting advantage obviously was gained by one team. Are you trying to tell all the other teams and their supporters who competed honestly in Scottish Football that Rangers 2012 have no case to answer in terms of their signing policy? Having said that, the SFA stood by and did nothing while they had a sectarian signing policy, so maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Let’s look at some of the players they managed to sign, guys like Arthur Numan, Ronald De Boer, Andre Kanchelskis, Tore Andre Flo, and the highest paid goalkeeper in European Football for eight years Stefan Klos. Are you seriously trying to tell us that they could have afforded those type of players if they were paying all their legal obligations in terms of tax etc? I note also the statement released by the SPFL, their statement seems to be at odds with your statement, I also note the statement released by Celtic Football Club, and again it doesn’t appear to agree with what you are saying. I will be copying in both Peter Lawwell and Neil Doncaster to this correspondence. I genuinely hope now that the rest of Scottish Football comes together to demand justice. It would appear that you are not capable of delivering an honest and transparent response to yesterday’s decision in the Supreme Court, so I believe that the honest people within Scottish Football need to take up the challenge and demand justice. That can only be achieved by first of all getting you out of your position within Scottish Football. Joe O’Rourke, General Secretary, Celtic Supporters Association. A key section in bold.... According to the Supreme Court ruling, I believe it specifically states about the legality of the EBT in use - in that they were 100% legal. The ruling simply means that tax should have been paid. There has been no breaking of SFA/SPL rules, therefore how can sanctions be applied. LNS's commission found that there were some details that were undisclosed ie. side letters, and RFC were fined accordingly for that administrative error. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,808 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 IMHO, Rangers are quite correct to say nothing. The SFA's statement is as definitive as it gets and the issue is now stone dead. Other than a few tiny fan groups getting one or two hits on social media, there's no mileage in the story. The tax case is now finished. No point in fuelling a fire that is about to go out forever. I partly agree. Partly, because ever since the Whyte fiasco and all that came afterwards, if there was something - no matter how initially remotely possible - that could go against us, it usually did. And given who presides over the issue now, i.e. the SPFL board, and who is on that, a nagging doubt that all is fine and well remains. Hence the request for some calm or indeed that we are speaking to the relevant authorities would be ... niece. Likewise some words against those who blackmail us and our good name since Wednesday noon. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 A key section in bold.... According to the Supreme Court ruling, I believe it specifically states about the legality of the EBT in use - in that they were 100% legal. The ruling simply means that tax should have been paid. There has been no breaking of SFA/SPL rules, therefore how can sanctions be applied. LNS's commission found that there were some details that were undisclosed ie. side letters, and RFC were fined accordingly for that administrative error. The funny thing is.... Mad Joe's statement, and the sentence in particular that you highlight... actually supports the case to NOT strip the titles. Mad Joe's assertion is that LNS made his judgement on the basis that the EBT's were legal. Ergo, Joe is saying that if they were legal then no sporting advantage was gained. Mad Joe is now making the spectacular mistake of suggesting that the EBT's were legal. Even the findings from the SC the other day stated that the EBT's were bona fide legal tax avoidance schemes and, therefore, no titles should be stripped. Joe, didn't realize you were a closet Bear - but thanks for the above statement and thanks for providing the Celtic fans with the statement they needed to hear - one that proves beyond doubt that titles shouldn't be stripped because, as LNS says, no sporting advantage was gained because the EBT's were legal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,761 Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 SFA/SPFL appear to be hiding discussions with HMRC on Marketed Film Tax Avoidance schemes. https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/sfaspfl-appear-to-be-hiding-discussions-with-hmrc-on-marketed-film-tax-avoidance-schemes/amp/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,741 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 The funny thing is.... Mad Joe's statement, and the sentence in particular that you highlight... actually supports the case to NOT strip the titles. Mad Joe's assertion is that LNS made his judgement on the basis that the EBT's were legal. Ergo, Joe is saying that if they were legal then no sporting advantage was gained. Mad Joe is now making the spectacular mistake of suggesting that the EBT's were legal. Even the findings from the SC the other day stated that the EBT's were bona fide legal tax avoidance schemes and, therefore, no titles should be stripped. Joe, didn't realize you were a closet Bear - but thanks for the above statement and thanks for providing the Celtic fans with the statement they needed to hear - one that proves beyond doubt that titles shouldn't be stripped because, as LNS says, no sporting advantage was gained because the EBT's were legal. The bit I don't get is that if they were legal tax avoidance schemes why does oldco owe tax on them? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 The bit I don't get is that if they were legal tax avoidance schemes why does oldco owe tax on them? they were legal at the time they were used, albeit some of the manners of its usage were wrong. HMRC later decided to impose retrospective fines on companies using them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 The bit I don't get is that if they were legal tax avoidance schemes why does oldco owe tax on them? cos HMRC change the rules & applied them retrospectively. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,761 Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 Q53*Mrs McGuire:*Can I ask what the current legal status is of employee benefit trusts? Can I turn to a piece of documentation or a link that will give me secure information? Can I be confident that an EBT is in compliance with HMRC rules? Or are they all up for grabs? *Jim Harra:*Employee benefit trusts are entirely legal. There can be good non-tax reasons why an employer would wish to set one up, but we did see a significant drive a few years ago. One of the key reasons for setting them up was to avoid pay-as-you-earn and national insurance obligations. We have published information about what is and is not acceptable from a tax point of view, and what we will challenge from a tax point of view, as well as the settlement opportunity that is available to companies if they choose to avail themselves of it. https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/sfaspfl-appear-to-be-hiding-discussions-with-hmrc-on-marketed-film-tax-avoidance-schemes/amp/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,960 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) The funny thing is.... Mad Joe's statement, and the sentence in particular that you highlight... actually supports the case to NOT strip the titles. Mad Joe's assertion is that LNS made his judgement on the basis that the EBT's were legal. Ergo, Joe is saying that if they were legal then no sporting advantage was gained. Mad Joe is now making the spectacular mistake of suggesting that the EBT's were legal. Even the findings from the SC the other day stated that the EBT's were bona fide legal tax avoidance schemes and, therefore, no titles should be stripped. Joe, didn't realize you were a closet Bear - but thanks for the above statement and thanks for providing the Celtic fans with the statement they needed to hear - one that proves beyond doubt that titles shouldn't be stripped because, as LNS says, no sporting advantage was gained because the EBT's were legal. I take your point, but the day we give any credence whatsoever to, far less found anything upon, the ravings of that fucking imbecile is the day we perish. Edited July 7, 2017 by Uilleam 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 The bit I don't get is that if they were legal tax avoidance schemes why does oldco owe tax on them? Because the tax system in the U.K. is grossly unfair. They were legal, the HMRC saw a flaw in the tax system and closed it. That is perfectly fine. However, what is grossly unfair is the retrospective application of it. 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.