Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

[webberg]

I'd like to ask the mods to consider moving some of this to a separate thread as it was originally set up to consider the decision and its implications rather than speculate on the fate of individuals etc.

I fear that the substantive issues here are being drowned in the noise.

[minestrone]

I don't care whether you and/or your mate works for BDO or DBO or anyone else. But the second part of your original post the isssue with sub judice / contempt of court. And don't forget that Lord Turnbull has imposed reporting restrictions.

The second sentence, I don't actually have any idea what it means, it looks to be a statement, then full stop, and you go onto talk about something else as the 'And' at the start of your third sentence suggests.

On Lord Turnbull, I believe I made reference to the reporting restrictions in post 154 and I have followed these to the letter. IF you are inferring that you are somehow telling me something new or that I have somehow not followed the advice then please let me know.

Otherwise it might suggest you are just writing stuff for the sake of it.

[minestrone]

I'd like to ask the mods to consider moving some of this to a separate thread as it was originally set up to consider the decision and its implications rather than speculate on the fate of individuals etc.

I fear that the substantive issues here are being drowned in the noise.

IF you would actually listen to the 'noise' that you tell me I am making then you might miss out on the information not everyone in the case had a side letter therefore this judgement cannot be in anyway rule directly on individuals. David Murray received a substantial sum from the EBT scheme but did not have a side letter, the side letters were important as they 'reportedly' told the players that the 'club' would always be liable for the tax. There is a suggestion that Murray can now be followed for this taxable amount.

Rather than simply attacking me, I'm here to give advice on this case and it evidently seems I am more informed than most on this.

[webberg]

I didn't think I was "attacking" you. If you feel that way, then my apologies.

I'm also not doubting your knowledge of the case. Whilst we may disagree as to the relative importance of certain pieces of evidence or dicta, I'm not suggesting that your view is incorrect.

Perhaps where we differ is that I've spent a lot of time looking at other contractor arrangements and I'm far from certain that the reasoning in Murray can be applied directly or indirectly to those arrangements. I'm not alone in that view and have posted links to others.

I freely acknowledge that the decision has split the tax profession and there are some who have the opposite view. Time will tell who is more correct.

This thread was started to discuss the application of the Murray decision to those other arrangements. I doubt that any of the managers/players who used the scheme discussed in the case are regular visitors here and as such I'm more interested in how the learning from the case is going to be applied. I think most readers of this thread are of the same mind.

Whilst I'm sure that many Scottish football fans have an interest in the case for perhaps non tax reasons (and I confess to being surprised at the strength of feeling) and are interested in the "what happens next" questions, with respect, this thread is not about that and hence I have asked (politely) for a separation.

[jbryce]

I'd like to ask the mods to consider moving some of this to a separate thread as it was originally set up to consider the decision and its implications rather than speculate on the fate of individuals etc.

I fear that the substantive issues here are being drowned in the noise.

Agree with this - can you crate a new thread 'Rangers appeal' or suchlike?
In the end - I'd rather be debating if the issues covered by the judgement have any further implications as regards the Contractor EBT arrangements.

[minestrone]

Perhaps where we differ is that I've spent a lot of time looking at other contractor arrangements and I'm far from certain that the reasoning in Murray can be applied directly or indirectly to those arrangements. I'm not alone in that view and have posted links to others.

I have said from just about my first post on this subject and multiple times after that the Rangers ruling was not going to make a difference to any EBT system with contractors ruling in future due to the side letters rangers made to the players.

No contractor with an EBT system ever had a side letter I would imagine and I posted a link to the verdict that clearly stated that the side letters were the major issue in this case.

For what it is worth I have no issue with any contractor that used these schemes, I don't think they were correct but retrospectively going after users is also wrong. That is me saying I have a certain level of agreement with yourselves.

[minestrone]

Whilst I'm sure that many Scottish football fans have an interest in the case for perhaps non tax reasons (and I confess to being surprised at the strength of feeling) and are interested in the "what happens next" questions, with respect, this thread is not about that and hence I have asked (politely) for a separation.

IF you think "Scottish football fans" had an 'interest' in this case I suggest you look again, Lord Menzies. Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Drummond Young had the final 'interest'

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

IF you think "Scottish football fans" had an 'interest' in this case I suggest you look again, Lord Menzies. Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Drummond Young had the final 'interest'

You may have had your soup, but the fat lady is yet to sing!

[fullyautomatix]

If the case was won by Rangers, no doubt the language here would have been along the lines of , EBT won! We won! We are saved!

But HMRC won, so nothing to see here, move on. This only applies to Rangers and all other EBTs are legal and so on and so forth.

[DotasScandal]

If the case was won by Rangers, no doubt the language here would have been along the lines of , EBT won! We won! We are saved!
But HMRC won, so nothing to see here, move on. This only applies to Rangers and all other EBTs are legal and so on and so forth.

What did you expect?