101

Dave...dont confuse them any more mate...just throw on more sand....

bubble has lost the place ffs

Away back to talking to yourself bubble

Work back the way IE. If wages are £50m then the player only receives £25m and the taxman £25m. The players received £50m in their pocket so if this was paid through PAYE the wage would have to be £100m.

You dont pay corporation tax on things paid out, they reduce your profit so you pay less tax. Payments into EBTs do not reduce profit, can you not get this fact through your thick skull?
*******************
Where did I say that you pay corporation tax on things paid out?
You pay corporation tax on your PROFITS...and I never said any differently
Payments into EBT's DO reduce profits, UNLESS you're saying the money went elsewhere and the very nature of a legitimate EBT scheme (and Rangers entire argument to winning the case) is that they are nothing to do with salaries, so of course I am arguing that they were nothing to do with salaries, because if Rangers used them correctly, they WERE nothing to do with salaries.
Hence, why the money doesn;t revert to a salary payment, just because you want it to, to suit your argument

Get you now dave

Brooklyn - you said "If they pay £50m into an EBT, then there is no corporation tax to pay on that £50m is there, for a start?" EBTs is money paid out and you said there was no corporation tax to pay on it.

Last time, EBTs DO NOT REDUCE PROFIT. I dont know how many times I need to tell you this fact.

FFS, I said "If they pay £50m into an EBT, then there is no corporation tax to pay on that £50m is there", because if it wasn't paid into an EBT, it would be part of the operating profits, and subject to corporation tax.
Because I am not juggling money about to suit my argument

EBT's "on their own" reduce profit, which is all I've been arguing.
If all you're saying is that an EBT, does not reduce profit, IN THE EVENT THAT the entire pool of money sunk into it, "would have been" salary, then we're arguing over nothing....

Dave...leave them alone. It's not funny anymore mate.

bubble, it wasn't funny in the first place...
The statement "EBT's do not reduce profit" is factually incorrect.

To try and settle this debate.........I'm no expert on these things.......but I just took a look at Rangers Annual Statement from 2008, and in the notes to the accounts, contributions to employee trusts was under staff costs along with wages, social security costs, pension contributions, and equity payments.

Underneath this was also a note saying "The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust was established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred."

So from that, I'm taking it that if the club was a stand alone entity, any payments to an EBT would be charged to the club's P+L account.

As it was the Murray Group's Trust and not the clubs, any payments made to it by the club were charged to the Murray Group's P+L account.

So is it not the case that you are both right and both wrong???

EBT payments are included in P+L, but in this case they were not included in the clubs???

I'll reiterate...I'm no expert here