Comment deleted by Site Moderator

You don't find it strange that there is evidence out there which would completely finish the argument, propel the "author" to Pulitzer Prize winning level, sell McGillivan millions of books, and they are CHOOSING to hold back?

Really?

And if the BBC has the papers, surely they would have checked the source, and if happy enough with that shown the papers.

So these documents have been seen by so many yet published by no one.

To me, that is extremely strange.

Ginger got the word right. Convoluted.

I think the tax thing is important here, as I think that it is fair to say that the article was written with the RFC narrative in mind.

It's almost like someone looking for a way, any way, to punish other clubs.

Tim - but the SPL have no interest in the tax investigation - their frames of reference for the current SPL investigation make no mention of anything other than the potential of undeclared contractual payments - i.e. documents supporting hidden contracts.

Davie,

On the other hand, HMRC must be total dummies and love burning taxpayer money going after a club with no evidence whatsoever to back up their case.

Let's just wait and see what happens. I think that the tribunal has to publish the evidence anyway.

"The players actually salary contract is what is important here. The accusation is that ceratin Rangers players had an undeclared second one."

Ginger

The rule is, all payments for footballing duties must be disclosed......where this argument comes in and where the grey area comes in is.....what are footballing duties???

Is it playing on the pitch and nothing more??

Could earning extra income thorugh being a footballing be classed as that???

Yes, the accusation at Rangers is that players had second contracts....but as I have said, repeatedly, if the tax case finds in Rangers favour, then there CANNOT BE any 2nd contracts, and if that is the case, when it comes to the SPL inverstigation, it comes down to whether EBTs were footballing duty payments or not.

Its as clear as mud this rule.....thats no doubt why it took the SPL all this fcking time to realise it might be getting broken.

Hence the argument made by Traynor....is it just a stupid nanny state rule that is very difficult to monitor and that clubs including Rangers, and perhaps others, have broken without even realising it???

Yes Davie, hidden contracts.

And as I said, if Celtic or any other club are guilty of subverting rules, diddling registration processes or whatever, then they should be help accountable.

Let's see the charges

Tim - HMRC are after a win against Rangers not for the money they can get from Rangers (which will be virtually nil) but a precedent so they can go after the REAL cash cows in the EPL.

To that end, yes they can burn through as much cash as they need - they know they only have to win once to trigger a load of out of court settlements with others.

Tim - let's see ALL the evidence against ALL clubs, including Rangers.

You cannot call for some without all being available....

Davie, I said lets see the charges

I accept that evidence in these types of cases may remain confidential until the point of verdict, whether for data protection purposes or whatever

"I accept that evidence in these types of cases may remain confidential until the point of verdict, whether for data protection purposes or whatever"

Just to pick up on that point.....if that was the case, why did the BBC, in their documentary, detail and show what they called "side letters" and emails then...while the case was still ongiong, and while this "evidence" you speak of isnt allowed to be viewed by the public??

Just a question like

Who knows st3vie?

There are loads and loads of tribunals going through the courts right now.

RFC are ovbviously high profile, and as Davie notes, probably a test case for HMRC. I imagine if Celtic were in this position it would be all over the papers too.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Eck

Alastair Johmstone made the exact same comments as Traynor last week.

Head in the sand time for some. And tin hats to the ready

Davie,

On the other hand, HMRC must be total dummies and love burning taxpayer money going after a club with no evidence whatsoever to back up their case.

Let's just wait and see what happens. I think that the tribunal has to publish the evidence anyway.
===

You are still completely missing the point. The SFA case has absolutely zero to do with tax on payments. It is solely on the disclosure of payments and whether 2nd contracts existed and their legiticimy under SFA/SPL rules

The HMRC is totally separate. This relates to the tax implications of any such deals. The existence of 2nd contracts is irrelevant to HMRC. They are only challenging the use of the EBTs and whether they were tax avoidance (which is legal) OR tax evasion (which is illegal)

Its simple. Stop confusing the two

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"The HMRC is totally separate. This relates to the tax implications of any such deals. The existence of 2nd contracts is irrelevant to HMRC. They are only challenging the use of the EBTs and whether they were tax avoidance (which is legal) OR tax evasion (which is illegal)

Its simple. Stop confusing the two "

===========================

They are definately linked.

The HMRC's case is really around the payments being contractual income. This would allow it to be taxed.

The SFA really need the HMRC judgement to go for them before they can consider their case.

Mitre

The issues are separate. The common denominator is clearly the EBTs.

But the SFA/SPL investigation on their use/legitimacy has no bearing on HMRCs case

I agree that the HMRC outcome may have some bearing on the SPL inquiry only thru the tax implications and what this implies in terms of their status for declaration within the SPL investigation

But the SPL investigation is separate from
hMRCs and will rule on it irrespective of the HMRC outcome. They are purely interested in whether the EBTs are 2nd contracts and key to this investigation will be the existence of documentary evidence

So I part agree and part disagree .

If the existence of second contracts or side letters, or whatever you want to call them, can be proved, then it will suggest that RFC PLC were trying to hide their usage of EBT's as a means of paying salaries. In that scenario, David Murray's protestations of innocence will be blown out of the water. As for the HMRC, they would of course be interested in the second contracts, as it will strengthen their view that RFC were engaging in wilful tax avoidance. In 2010, HMRC issued a determination that RFC owed them almost £50 million. Hard to see the outcome of this tribunal being any better from an RFC point of view

D + P say the bill is 96 million apparently

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"But the SPL investigation is separate from
hMRCs and will rule on it irrespective of the HMRC outcome. They are purely interested in whether the EBTs are 2nd contracts and key to this investigation will be the existence of documentary evidence"

=========================

Esc, I cant agree mate.

If the HMRC decision goes in OldCo's favour, then the SPL's enquiry is a losing cause.

If the HMRC decide the EBTs were correctly implimented, then this means they are legally declaring them to be non-contractual loans.

A loan is not a payment for footballing purposes, so is certainly not against the rules.

There are 4 outcomes in this.

1. Win the HMRC Case, Win the SPL case. (Not likely)

2. Lose the HMRC Case, Lose the SPL Case. (Likely)

3. Lose the HMRC Case, Win the SPL Case. (Not likely)

4. Win the HMRC Case, Lose the SPL Case. (Basically impossible).

I count a lose in the HMRC case as being any liability assumed, not just the full ammount.

What will be interesting is that if scenario 2 happens, what legal avenues are open?

Clearing Celtic of the Juninho case is a sticking point for the SPL. Whether the timing of an EBT trigger should have anything to do with its legal application is seriously doubtful. Also if image rights are discussed, then it could open a whole can of worms.

"comment by Hampden57 (U10297)
posted 18 minutes ago
If the existence of second contracts or side letters, or whatever you want to call them, can be proved, then it will suggest that RFC PLC were trying to hide their usage of EBT's as a means of paying salaries. "

=============================

Not really, it depends on what is in the side letter. A side letter can come in many forms, many of which do not form contractual agreements.

comment by tim o' tay - Do Zombies Dream of Infected Sheep? (U8710)
posted 3 minutes ago
D + P say the bill is 96 million apparently

==============================

Remember that is the big and wee tax cases, and the provision for the full liability of the BTC landing on OldCo.