Rangers declared EBT's just because you lot spout lies over and over doesn't make it true.
Ebt's a legal mechanism.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM45120.htm
Did rangers declare why they were using the ebt's, though?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Employee Benefit Trust is pretty self explanatory. It's a fund a company uses to fund benefits for it's employees. I don't see why a company would declare exactly what they are doing with such a general fund.
One of the benefits offered happened to be tax free loans to players/employees. Technically these loans will never have to be paid back though.
It is a well known and well used tax loophole. If documented correctly (well basically not documented) then it was technically legal and there is nothing HMRC can do about it. Unless they have documents (ie side contracts) specifying that these loans were to be considered part of the players salaries then there is no case.
DB as I posted the link above HMRC provide details of how to do it ffs.
It's like banging your head off a brick wall with this lot.
The fact is none of us really know how strong HMRC's evidence is. Although I'd be willing to bet if it was substantial this would all be over by now and we'd have been nailed.
Plenty of companies have used this scheme and effectively 'got away with it'.
It may not be morally great but would you pay 40 % tax if you could get away with less? No brainer.
I have said all along I think we will win the appeal.
Dealing with braindead Celtic fans and their ignorant lies is a joke tbh.
If we win the appeal does that mean that we liquidated due to 6 months of Craig Whyte?
Also wouldn't that mean that HMRC may no longer have represented over 25% of creditors meaning they would not have been able to stop the CVA?
That the SPL clubs basis for voting no to Rangers was based on Craig Whytes tenure and nothing more?
If we win the appeal the can of worms opened would not be worth the hassle.
Phoenix
I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the EBT sum of around £50m was not included on the CVA. I think it was just the £9m Whyte decided not pay.
The ebt sum was irrelevant in the cva due to the debt whyte ran up.
Sign in if you want to comment
Johnston having his say
Page 2 of 2
posted on 12/9/12
Rangers declared EBT's just because you lot spout lies over and over doesn't make it true.
Ebt's a legal mechanism.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM45120.htm
posted on 12/9/12
Did rangers declare why they were using the ebt's, though?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Employee Benefit Trust is pretty self explanatory. It's a fund a company uses to fund benefits for it's employees. I don't see why a company would declare exactly what they are doing with such a general fund.
One of the benefits offered happened to be tax free loans to players/employees. Technically these loans will never have to be paid back though.
It is a well known and well used tax loophole. If documented correctly (well basically not documented) then it was technically legal and there is nothing HMRC can do about it. Unless they have documents (ie side contracts) specifying that these loans were to be considered part of the players salaries then there is no case.
posted on 12/9/12
DB as I posted the link above HMRC provide details of how to do it ffs.
posted on 12/9/12
It's like banging your head off a brick wall with this lot.
The fact is none of us really know how strong HMRC's evidence is. Although I'd be willing to bet if it was substantial this would all be over by now and we'd have been nailed.
Plenty of companies have used this scheme and effectively 'got away with it'.
It may not be morally great but would you pay 40 % tax if you could get away with less? No brainer.
posted on 12/9/12
I have said all along I think we will win the appeal.
Dealing with braindead Celtic fans and their ignorant lies is a joke tbh.
posted on 12/9/12
If we win the appeal does that mean that we liquidated due to 6 months of Craig Whyte?
Also wouldn't that mean that HMRC may no longer have represented over 25% of creditors meaning they would not have been able to stop the CVA?
That the SPL clubs basis for voting no to Rangers was based on Craig Whytes tenure and nothing more?
If we win the appeal the can of worms opened would not be worth the hassle.
posted on 12/9/12
Phoenix
I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the EBT sum of around £50m was not included on the CVA. I think it was just the £9m Whyte decided not pay.
posted on 12/9/12
The ebt sum was irrelevant in the cva due to the debt whyte ran up.
Page 2 of 2