Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[sbcmfc]

To be fair you could go on shopping spree in Motherwell with a tenner and ironically I pulled up by the taxman last month for some earnings (which I'd genuinely forgotten about) I didn't declare on my last tax return.

Actually most of the shops in Motherwell would probably give you a payday loan, which does nothing to help my case.

[ShedTA]

To be fair you could go on shopping spree in Motherwell with a tenner and ironically I pulled up by the taxman last month for some earnings (which I'd genuinely forgotten about) I didn't declare on my last tax return.

You see this sort of behaviour by football clubs rubs off on the fans. That's why it must be stamped out and punished!!

[Larky Masher]

You see this sort of behaviour by football clubs rubs off on the fans. That's why it must be stamped out and punished!!

Mea culpa.

[RenfrewBlue]

wow, everyone is expert on company/business/association/partnerships law now.

this is all about football is it not, , , the rest is whitewash,

why did rangers football club not compete in the European competitions the following year?

Rangers football club finished second the year they went into liquidation and qualified for Europe.

why did all their players leave ,

Rangers football club ended and a new Rangers football club started

the fans of this club believe they are the same club , they play in same place have the same name

other fans believe they are a new club who play in the same place and have the same fans and have the same name.

they two sides will never agree.

i really dont know why it matters, honestly i dont,

I said much the same thing a few pages ago then the great legal minds started boring the arse off of us with business law.

It was much better when it was all name calling and banter.

I do find it funny that no one believes that the other person actually knows the subject matter.

I am not trained in the subject and it is hidden behind all sorts of jargon but it can't be that difficult to understand, can it?

[littleboyblue]

Partnerships and sole traders are not legal entities in there was a claim against either of those it would be against the owners who have unlimited liability.

Not sure that is the case in Scotland.

In Scotland the partnership (or firm as it is more correctly referred to in Scotland) is a legal personality distinct from the persons who compose it. The Partnership Act 1890 provides that “In Scotland, a firm is a legal person distinct from the partners of whom it is composed, but an individual partner may be charged on a decree or diligence directed against the firm and on payment of the debts is entitled to relief pro rata from the firm and its other members.” The partnership property is held by all the partners jointly and one of the consequences of this is, that all heritable property belonging to the partnership is moveable quoad succession since the only right in it which any partner possesses is a mere jus crediti. Moreover, since the firm is a separate legal personality, it has long been held that partnerships may sue and be sued in the firm name.

Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm25091.htm

[littleboyblue]

No

OK, that is your game so I'm sure you are right on the general point. My list wasn't exhaustive though. To help me, what is an example of a business that does not have a legal status mentioned in my list, or more accurately, what I am really getting at, is what is an example of a business that does not need to produce accounts.

Once I've established that, maybe Bruce could respond as to whether Rangers FC was such a business?

[Larky Masher]

Not sure that is the case in Scotland.

In Scotland the partnership (or firm as it is more correctly referred to in Scotland) is a legal personality distinct from the persons who compose it. The Partnership Act 1890 provides that “In Scotland, a firm is a legal person distinct from the partners of whom it is composed, but an individual partner may be charged on a decree or diligence directed against the firm and on payment of the debts is entitled to relief pro rata from the firm and its other members.” The partnership property is held by all the partners jointly and one of the consequences of this is, that all heritable property belonging to the partnership is moveable quoad succession since the only right in it which any partner possesses is a mere jus crediti. Moreover, since the firm is a separate legal personality, it has long been held that partnerships may sue and be sued in the firm name.

Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm25091.htm

That only covers them in Scotland if they do business outside Scotland the UK "rules" would apply.

[littleboyblue]

That only covers them in Scotland if they do business outside Scotland the UK "rules" would apply.

I've no idea if that is right or wrong but it is going off in a different direction so I'll leave it there.

[Larky Masher]

I've no idea if that is right or wrong but it is going off in a different direction so I'll leave it there.

You got me, I just make stuff up and post in on here.

[Mox]

The simple fact is that it's a different club but is populated by the same unionists with their we are the people arrogance which is why folk don't like this new club either.

Lest we forget however that the people sat back when their club was on its knees and did nout. That is the greatest thing that has come out of this hilarious episode and when it's all said and done there is no argument regarding that.

[littleboyblue]

You got me, I just make stuff up and post in on here.

:-) now, Larky, I didn't say that. I just pointed out something you said that I felt was wrong and backed it up. You clarified your point and I can't dispute it.

[Debian]

The simple fact is that it's a different club but is populated by the same unionists with their we are the people arrogance which is why folk don't like this new club either.

Lest we forget however that the people sat back when their club was on its knees and did nout. That is the greatest thing that has come out of this hilarious episode and when it's all said and done there is no argument regarding that.

You keep peddling your nonsense. It's quite funny.

If there was a difference we would not have this thread.

[ParisInAKilt]

Haha are people still having this argument?

[Mitre]

Haha are people still having this argument?

Just popped in to check the same. Will check again after 600 pages.

[Glasgowmancity]

OK, that is your game so I'm sure you are right on the general point. My list wasn't exhaustive though. To help me, what is an example of a business that does not have a legal status mentioned in my list, or more accurately, what I am really getting at, is what is an example of a business that does not need to produce accounts.

Once I've established that, maybe Bruce could respond as to whether Rangers FC was such a business?

An example I know of.

Someone is a director/company secretary of An Accountants, A Financial Advisers & an Estate Agents - all 3 are separate companies & therefore legal entities.

The same person also owns taxis & flats as a sole trader (the legal entity here is the individual) - in that situation there are 3 sets of accounts & 1 tax return required.

Each Ltd Company has to do sets of accounts and submit them to Companies House.

There also needs to be one tax return done, this covers dividends, any paye & any self employed income (taxis & flats) - there is no requirement for separate accounts to be done for the flats & taxis.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Glasgowmancity

[Fairbairn]

And on and on it goes......

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14040779.Rangers_oldco_liquidators_set_to_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/?ref=mr&lp=8

[Fred_Zeppelin]

Sevco FC, helping the legal community in Scotland through the recession since 2012.

[Larky Masher]

Sevco FC, helping the legal community in Scotland through the recession since 2012.

EK Celt, posting pish since September 2007.

[RenfrewBlue]

Sevco FC, helping the legal community in Scotland through the recession since 2012.

Sevco is the company and has never been an FC.

For someone who is so pedantic on what constitutes a company and a football club you don't half make yourself look daft sometimes.

[Fred_Zeppelin]

Sevco is the company and has never been an FC.

For someone who is so pedantic on what constitutes a company and a football club you don't half make yourself look daft sometimes.

Whooooooooooooooosh!!!!

[bruce778]

And on and on it goes......

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14040779.Rangers_oldco_liquidators_set_to_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/?ref=mr&lp=8

Not surprising. When you read the judgment of the court of session, it seems to ignore the words of the legislation on which the tax liability is claimed and proceeds on the basis of a ground of appeal not included in the grounds before the tax tribunal and appeal tribunal. Certainly both worthwhile grounds of appeal.

[RenfrewBlue]

Whooooooooooooooosh!!!!

Terribly sorry precious. I didn't realise you were the only one allowed to take the mickey!

[ShedTA]

And on and on it goes......

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14040779.Rangers_oldco_liquidators_set_to_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/?ref=mr&lp=8

Not surprising. When you read the judgment of the court of session, it seems to ignore the words of the legislation on which the tax liability is claimed and proceeds on the basis of a ground of appeal not included in the grounds before the tax tribunal and appeal tribunal. Certainly both worthwhile grounds of appeal.

They may do but I believe the herald story is a pile of pish. Think bdo have released a statement saying no decision on the matter have they not?

[thplinth]

And on and on it goes......

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14040779.Rangers_oldco_liquidators_set_to_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/?ref=mr&lp=8

Aye it has a certain inevitability about it all.

So while we wait for the outcome we will have a good few months of folk demanding titles be stripped before the next and final decision.

If it is win for RFC everyone has to shut up (again) about all that cheating stuff but if RFC (or rather BDO) lose at the SUPREME court then the cheating shit goes kunting fecking nuclear IMHO. This issue could have died a death had BDO not appealed but now it is life or death.

I feel it was a blatant case of tax evasion but who knows RFC (1899 & 2012) have friends in high places.

By taking it to the supreme court BDO have gone all in. If they lose the clamour for title stripping will go interstellar. If the win then they get to keep the cheated titles.

Edited November 20, 2015 by thplinth

[EddardStark]

Rangers’ administrators to take HMRC all the way to the Supreme Court

HMRC scored a victory this month when judges ruled that the tax avoidance plans could be judged as disguised remuneration, but Rangers will fight back

By Roddy Forsyth

7:47PM GMT 20 Nov 2015

Rangers’ administrators will take HMRC all the way to the Supreme Court over the vexed issue of the use of EBT schemes at Ibrox between 2001 and 2011, Telegraph Sport understands. The move expected to be announced next week and predicted by Telegraph Sport would constitute the final attempt to keep the taxman from taking the lion’s share of the money available to creditors from the 2012 meltdown of the Ibrox oldco under former owner Craig Whyte.

After failing to persuade two lower tier tribunals that the EBT (Employement Benefit Trust) schemes were administered incorrectly, HMRC scored a victory in the Court of Session in Edinburgh earlier this month, when three judges ruled that the tax avoidance plans could be judged as disguised remuneration. The Court of Session judgement triggered a clamour amongst fans of rival clubs to have Rangers stripped of the honours acquired while the scheme was in use.

Rangers won five Scottish championships and achieved four successes in the Scottish Cup and six in the Scottish League Cup during that period. However, an appeal to the Supreme Court would shelve the issue for at least a year and quite probably longer. The Telegraph can disclose that both the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League were made aware earlier this week of the likelihood of an appeal.

Aside from securing a favourable ruling to use as a precedent for cases involving EBT use by UK businesses – which are believed to run to thousands – HMRC also wants to be in a position to acquire the bulk of the revenue remaining in the control of BDO, liquidators of the oldco. The cash pot includes £24 million obtained in a settlement with Collyer Bristow, the London legal firm, over the issue of the advance sale of three years worth of season tickets which helped fund Whyte’s original takeover of the club.

If HMRC succeed, the other creditors can expect a maximum return of £1 for every £12 owed to them. If BDO prevails, the return would double.

The question of Rangers’ use of EBTs was raised again at Celtic’s annual general meeting today (Fri) by a representative of the Resolution 12 group of supporters who want the Parkhead club to pursue the issue with the SFA. Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief executive, said: "When hugely sensitive issues come up we don't always go public but I can assure everyone that everything we do is for the benefit of Celtic Football Club.

"The Resolution 12 people are satisfied with what the club are doing."

Hugh Clark, one of the Resolution 12 group, said: "We are happy with way club is working with them and they are awaiting SFA response."

The SFA, however, will make no moves over the issue while an appeal remains possible or is actively under way. It is understood that the prevailing view within the SPFL is that no statute of theirs or their predecessor body, the Scottish Premier League, has been breached and that the most likely route for retrospective action against Rangers, if any, would have to be applied through the SFA regulations covering behaviour which brings the game into disrepute.

In 2012 Telegraph Sport revealed that several Premier League clubs in England, including Arsenal, had agreed settlements with HMRC, in respect of EBT and other tax avoidance schemes. In Scotland, Celtic are the only club apart from Rangers who are known to have used an EBT contract, in the single case of Juninho, who played for the Hoops in 2004-05, and who received his cash after he left the club, unlike those at Ibrox who were beneficiaries while still playing there.