vanderark14 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Jim Beem said: John Reid seems to be in the firing line for this obviously deliberate act. Salmond also been mentioned. Theres nothing funnier than the complete hun rampage or meltdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Beem Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Fairbairn said: John Reid should always be in the firing line. A fair comment. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErsatzThistle Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, vanderark14 said: Salmond also been mentioned. Theres nothing funnier than the complete hun rampage or meltdown Asking for a Chugging .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Beem Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said: Asking for a Chugging .... I’m sure thats the smack head involved with Sons of Struth 😂😂😂🙈 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farcity Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, vanderark14 said: Salmond also been mentioned. Theres nothing funnier than the complete hun rampage or meltdown You are wrong. Their death was funnier, much funnier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanderark14 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 This latest article is very strange. All those accountants and experts dealing with administration in 2012 and not one of them found this rather large error by HMRC. Erm aye ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 38 minutes ago, vanderark14 said: This latest article is very strange. All those accountants and experts dealing with administration in 2012 and not one of them found this rather large error by HMRC. Erm aye ok Not one of the thousands of Kerrydale Street accountants notices it either. Shockingly poor work really. I blame EK_Celt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, RenfrewBlue said: Not one of the thousands of Kerrydale Street accountants notices it either. Shockingly poor work really. I blame EK_Celt. Never fear... ShedTA is here 🕺 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 2 hours ago, vanderark14 said: This latest article is very strange. All those accountants and experts dealing with administration in 2012 and not one of them found this rather large error by HMRC. Erm aye ok Remember Rangers was the test case after the larger English club settled their EBT liabilites at the time. This was all pretty much new law, and hadn't been tested. HMRC was looking for a target and applied the 65% penalty rate, probably on the basis at the time that Rangers didnt have the resources to challenge. Happy to send you across a copy of this weeks tax journal, which sets all this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 7 hours ago, ShedTA said: Agreed it's crazy. Big gamble on promotion. Difference is most utd fans agree, whereas in rangers case it's just denial. Nah. We'll just go bust and come back again Utd fan in my boozer was saying that quite a lot of their squad arn't on long term contacts, so if they dont make it, they'll be let go to limit the damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCTA Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 42 minutes ago, Stu101 said: Remember Rangers was the test case after the larger English club settled their EBT liabilites at the time. This was all pretty much new law, and hadn't been tested. HMRC was looking for a target and applied the 65% penalty rate, probably on the basis at the time that Rangers didnt have the resources to challenge. Happy to send you across a copy of this weeks tax journal, which sets all this out. Is it not the case (I’m claiming no knowledge or insight, I read it here or twitter) that HMRC are just not pursuing the charges, as ultimately it’s pointless, as there’s fuck all in the pot anyway, so it’s a waste of resources to fight it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling hIlls Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 23 hours ago, ShedTA said: The full bill would still have been £68m. It changes nothing. Rangers did not have £68m. The reduction is HMRC's refusing to contest the penalties side of the claim, non contested cos there was nothing in the pot to pay it anyway. It's old news. Just read in the Times that HMRC are blaming it on a wee girl who had just started a week. She never got the proper induction in to how to use a calculator. Poor lassie carrying the can for all those fake titles in the last 8 years. What a burden to bear (if you pardon the hun) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling hIlls Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Pun. Predictive text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 39 minutes ago, Rolling hIlls said: Pun. Predictive text. How wonderfully apt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling hIlls Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, macy37 said: How wonderfully apt. Gotcha. Made my day already Macy! Not my biggest catch I admit but a fish is a fish. Scotland Forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 https://twitter.com/hmrcpressoffice/status/1195380869529255938?s=21 And that's the end of that chapter, a 24 hour myth, decent effort from all involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Mox said: https://twitter.com/hmrcpressoffice/status/1195380869529255938?s=21 And that's the end of that chapter, a 24 hour myth, decent effort from all involved. Have you read the letter Mox? It just says they didn't make any mistakes. It doesn't say they aren't reducing the figure. We'll find out the truth of it in the fullness of time. Not that it matters anymore really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 3 hours ago, Mox said: https://twitter.com/hmrcpressoffice/status/1195380869529255938?s=21 And that's the end of that chapter, a 24 hour myth, decent effort from all involved. The thing is, the most vocal staunch “Rangers Da’s“ will completely ignore this. 1 hour ago, RenfrewBlue said: Have you read the letter Mox? It just says they didn't make any mistakes. It doesn't say they aren't reducing the figure. We'll find out the truth of it in the fullness of time. Not that it matters anymore really. I think this is the answer below??? 20 hours ago, sbcmfc said: Is it not the case (I’m claiming no knowledge or insight, I read it here or twitter) that HMRC are just not pursuing the charges, as ultimately it’s pointless, as there’s fuck all in the pot anyway, so it’s a waste of resources to fight it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 32 minutes ago, sbcmfc said: The thing is, the most vocal staunch “Rangers Da’s“ will completely ignore this. I think this is the answer below??? Probably. However I'm holding out hope it's a fuck up on HMRC's end just to see some of the eejits like John James explode with their frothing obsession. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 22 hours ago, sbcmfc said: Is it not the case (I’m claiming no knowledge or insight, I read it here or twitter) that HMRC are just not pursuing the charges, as ultimately it’s pointless, as there’s fuck all in the pot anyway, so it’s a waste of resources to fight it? HMRC was after a headline case to force others to settle. Every other club settled until they came to us. HRMC basically said the bill was 'x'. That basicaly put off buyers for Rangers because the tax bill was so large. So if you were a shareholder, their is a potential claim against HMRC if they applied the wrong 65% penalty rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 5 hours ago, Mox said: https://twitter.com/hmrcpressoffice/status/1195380869529255938?s=21 And that's the end of that chapter, a 24 hour myth, decent effort from all involved. HMRC also dont comment on individual cases. Normally.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErsatzThistle Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 On 11/14/2019 at 8:10 PM, Jim Beem said: I’m sure thats the smack head involved with Sons of Struth 😂😂😂🙈 He's currently in jail. Only months after renouncing violence he got done for brawling with Wigan casuals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 2 hours ago, Stu101 said: HMRC was after a headline case to force others to settle. Every other club settled until they came to us. HRMC basically said the bill was 'x'. That basicaly put off buyers for Rangers because the tax bill was so large. So if you were a shareholder, their is a potential claim against HMRC if they applied the wrong 65% penalty rate. You sir are one of the thousands of absolute spastics that make the Huns the wonderful laughing stock we all know today. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardy Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 2 hours ago, Stu101 said: HMRC was after a headline case to force others to settle. Every other club settled until they came to us. HRMC basically said the bill was 'x'. That basicaly put off buyers for Rangers because the tax bill was so large. So if you were a shareholder, their is a potential claim against HMRC if they applied the wrong 65% penalty rate. Surely Aberdeen Asset Management which settled in 2013 were a much bigger fish (even though the repayment was lower) than Rangers. I love this victim pish of they were out to get us. We were a test case. Rangers flaunted tax rules and like over 600 other companies who used EBTs were asked to pay the tax on them. The dispute HMRC had with Rangers was legitimate (and proven to be so in a court of law) and if it put off potential buyers then that was on Rangers not HMRC. Rangers were a loss making football club propped up by a 'wealthy' owner. They had 10's of millions of debt to Lloyds, the small tax case, other clubs and creditors. Nobody was going near them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.