Former Rangers Football Club wins Big Tax Case appeal

[southpaw83]

Just to answer your learned reply, there were 2 previous cases (these can be found on Contractor UK, Taxman letters to EBT users) which had ruled against HMRC so there is your precedence (also the tax owed if any is owed by the Employee not Employer) as an EBT is basically meant as a tax free loan.
You mention Juninho not playing in Europe and Celtic not winning the League whilst he was there, this has no relevence to taxation.
You also say "And yes, they wouldn't have to pay - as everyone knows and accepts. You can't chase new Rangers for old Rangers debts, duh."
Then why has Charles Green been persued for this particular Tax case and why has he had to pay some of the "old Rangers" debt ?
Would that be because "we bought the club and history" which also included it's debt ?
As you also say "You will believe what you want, I'm happy for you all to do so in division 3"
I think most Rangers fans are now happy to do so in Division 3 because it highlights the feelings against Rangers.
You will also believe in what you want, hence the discussion on this thread.

Charles Green had to pay some oldco debts as a bargaining tool to get the completely new entity and football club into any league. The SFA made them pay old football debts. The big tax case, which of course, you haven't read, also has you liable for tax on players EBTs. You admit liability on 5 players in it. It wasn't an exoneration like it is being portrayed. This oldco tax debt, along with the OTHER oldco tax debts (you went bust without it) and lots of other debt has gone completely as a new club isn't liable for an old clubs debts.

How can you buy a club and history? Seriously, it's just a nonsense statement to make you all feel better

And as for Juninho, the relevance was you cannot strip is off any titles. The precedent was every game EBTs affected was to result in a 3-0 loss. You would still end up with less points than us due to EBT all stars. Our Juninho EBT was also properly registered, and in our accounts. Yours weren't. Our single use of one EBT is different in every way to yours

[rds60h]

As reported by the BBC on 23rd May 2012, Celtic paid a ?765,000 EBT to Juninho in April 2005, the club did not the trust payment to the SFA or the SPL, the payments to the trust were declared in Celtics 2004/5 Annual Report.
In 2008 Celtic became aware of an event giving rise to a "potential" tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC.
So by your opinion, because the EBT was not declared to the Football Authorities and so despite being "properly" registered and declared in Accounts (as were the Rangers EBTs) therefore all games he played in should result in a 3 nil loss...............including the Scottish Cup win over Dundee United.
So you see we can all pull out "Facts" that support our own views.
But the thread is to report that the Courts have found against HMRC, so absolutely nothing to do with Football Results.

[southpaw83]

As reported by the BBC on 23rd May 2012, Celtic paid a ?765,000 EBT to Juninho in April 2005, the club did not the trust payment to the SFA or the SPL, the payments to the trust were declared in Celtics 2004/5 Annual Report.
In 2008 Celtic became aware of an event giving rise to a "potential" tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC.
So by your opinion, because the EBT was not declared to the Football Authorities and so despite being "properly" registered and declared in Accounts (as were the Rangers EBTs) therefore all games he played in should result in a 3 nil loss...............including the Scottish Cup win over Dundee United.
So you see we can all pull out "Facts" that support our own views.
But the thread is to report that the Courts have found against HMRC, so absolutely nothing to do with Football Results.

I take the you don't know about the SPL hearing on improper registration? That this was to form a huge part of. I'm done anyway, it matters not.

Enjoy your share issue pal, they're a great investment ::

[Rodbouy]

One interesting point. Maybe a oldco fan can tell me.

Now for years oldco were in massive debt. correct ?

Now these ebts where loans to be repaid. Correct ?

Well why oh why then did the trustee not sanction a repayment when the club was dying. Surely this would have helped.

Oh that's right they played the system. Failed. Then died.

Simples

[SIMPLY THE BEST]

Post 14 is a bit confusing after reading it, then to see Post 19 only confuses me more, again if i am reading this correctly why is there a Post 19 after Post 14 ?
As there song goes they just can't get enough

On a more serious note the thread was about Rangers being found not guilty pure and simple can't see the relevence to the actual thread in some of the posts but hey ho.