Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

[Iliketax]

I quoted the article on the previous page in case you haven't read anything I have been writing.

I did skim through the article and do have a few questions that you may be able to help me with. Just to keep it brief, can I ask about one sentence in the first paragraph?

What they fail to realize is that unless they can prove that the evidence presented to The Court of Session perverted the course of justice i.e. those called to give evidence lied and later recanted their lies in the forthcoming three weeks, there are no grounds for appeal.

1. What evidence was presented to the Court of Session when they heard the appeal?
2. Who was called to present that evidence to the Court of Session? Please do not mention the legal teams as they don't present evidence.
3. Who gave evidence to the Court of Session that "perverted the course of justice"?
4. What grounds are there for appeal from the Court of Session to the Supreme Court (other than "perverted the course of justice" in the quote)?
5. Can you show me where "perverted the course of justice" is a ground for appeal to the Supreme Court?
6. What is the time limit for applying to the Court of Session to appeal to the Supreme Court?
7. What is the time limit for applying to the Supreme Court to hear the appeal if the Court of Session does not grant permission?
8. How do those time limits tie in with three weeks in the sentence?

And in respect of some of the other posts you made:

9. Where in the Court of Session judgement does it specifically say that the side-letters were a factor in their judgement (other than in relation to background facts)?
10. How much did BDO disclose to the creditors that their legal fees were for the appeal to the Court of Session?
11. Bearing in mind the answer to the previous question, why do you think that BDO has any influence in the decision whether to appeal to the Supreme Court?

[minestrone]

I did skim through the article and do have a few questions that you may be able to help me with. Just to keep it brief, can I ask about one sentence in the first paragraph?



1. What evidence was presented to the Court of Session when they heard the appeal?
2. Who was called to present that evidence to the Court of Session? Please do not mention the legal teams as they don't present evidence.
3. Who gave evidence to the Court of Session that "perverted the course of justice"?
4. What grounds are there for appeal from the Court of Session to the Supreme Court (other than "perverted the course of justice" in the quote)?
5. Can you show me where "perverted the course of justice" is a ground for appeal to the Supreme Court?
6. What is the time limit for applying to the Court of Session to appeal to the Supreme Court?
7. What is the time limit for applying to the Supreme Court to hear the appeal if the Court of Session does not grant permission?
8. How do those time limits tie in with three weeks in the sentence?

And in respect of some of the other posts you made:

9. Where in the Court of Session judgement does it specifically say that the side-letters were a factor in their judgement (other than in relation to background facts)?
10. How much did BDO disclose to the creditors that their legal fees were for the appeal to the Court of Session?
11. Bearing in mind the answer to the previous question, why do you think that BDO has any influence in the decision whether to appeal to the Supreme Court?

I cant be arsed going through them all, as you know the evidence was already gathered.

On number 9 specifically...

Finally, we are of opinion that the relevant payment of emoluments or earnings is that made by the employer to the trustee of the Principal Trust. The critical feature of emoluments or earnings is that they represent consideration for services provided under a contract of employment, and such consideration is ultimately provided by the employer. Thus the critical point when it can be said that an emolument or earnings have been paid is when the employer makes a payment either directly to the employee or in a manner that has been requested or at least acquiesced in by the employee. In the present case the payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust occurred the point when funds left the employer, and they were made to an entity that had been selected by the employee (through the arrangements in the side letters), or at least acquiesced in by the employee, as the manner in which the funds would be channelled to his own sub-trust.

I think that essentially says that the remuneration was already decided upon and the arrangements were in the side letters.

[Iliketax]

I cant be arsed.

Me too.

[minestrone]

On the right to no appeal, I can't offer an opinion on that, I posted a blog from a very reliable blogger. Nothing more.

On the legalities of the EBT system I again offer no opinion, I never have, nor wish to interfere or decide what happens in the many poster's affairs on this thread that are involved in this discussion.

In the case of the liquidated Rangers football club, my position is quite clear, they paid money through trusts and the sums were directly under a contract of employment and that was their undoing. These 'side letter' contracts were known and documented in the Scottish legal system and have been correctly decided to be a contract of employment. They lied to the football association and are not in serious risk of losing all the titles the now defunct club won.

The CUK article that was posted and used as evidence in the last few pages fails to mention the crucial 'side letters' so I therefore conclude that it is utterly meaningless in respect to the participants of EBT schemes. I would also conclude that the article was bait to people in your position, it stated a company and told you what you wanted to hear, it could possibly be thought of as advertising if you are of a cynical nature.

Again I say that the liquidators might again get the club back, maybe improbably but not impossibly. Everyone has ben well warned not to discuss the actions online but this gives some indication as to what is going on

https://rangersfraudcase.wordpress.com/

[webberg]

On the right to no appeal, I can't offer an opinion on that, I posted a blog from a very reliable blogger. Nothing more.

The CUK article that was posted and used as evidence in the last few pages fails to mention the crucial 'side letters' so I therefore conclude that it is utterly meaningless in respect to the participants of EBT schemes. I would also conclude that the article was bait to people in your position, it stated a company and told you what you wanted to hear, it could possibly be thought of as advertising if you are of a cynical nature.

https://rangersfraudcase.wordpress.com/

As I said reliable and verifiable information is always useful. Rumour and speculation is not.

I'm assuming you refer to my article in CUK?

That article took as its base case the fact that in the Murray Group decision it was an agreed fact that the managers/players were employees. This was accepted by all sides at the FTT hearing. Consequently the importance of the side letters was whether they formed part of an existing contract of employment. The Judges decided they did.

For the managers/employees in the case the side letter was NOT a contract of employment, but rather formed part of an existing contract enshrined elsewhere. I have no comment on whether the side letters were legal/illegal under the rules of the Scottish FA. I'm not qualified to answer that.

In all the schemes I've seen contractors used, none of them have the same fact pattern as the Murray Group case, none have side letters, the trust arrangements, loan arrangements and loan terms are all different. Consequently the article expressed my OPINION that it would be difficult for HMRC to apply the Murray Group decision to the facts of most (not all) trust/loan schemes.

In my dealings with contractors I have always been careful to declare my interest be that personal, professional or commercial. I have not hidden any of these points. Regular members of this website and contributors to the forum are well aware of my position and will take into account my motivations in anything I produce, even if I did not make such declarations.

I therefore REJECT your insinuation that it was a cynical piece of advertising. I suggest that view has more to do with your attitude and approach than mine.

However, you are entitled to your view and eventually who knows, your rather bold assertion that all contractor EBT schemes (whatever they are) have been decided on the basis of a case about PAYE due on employees might be right. I don't think so but then again I prefer to apply logic and analysis to facts rather than rely upon rumour from unknown and for I know unreliable sources.

[minestrone]

As I said reliable and verifiable information is always useful. Rumour and speculation is not.

I'm assuming you refer to my article in CUK?

That article took as its base case the fact that in the Murray Group decision it was an agreed fact that the managers/players were employees. This was accepted by all sides at the FTT hearing. Consequently the importance of the side letters was whether they formed part of an existing contract of employment. The Judges decided they did.

For the managers/employees in the case the side letter was NOT a contract of employment, but rather formed part of an existing contract enshrined elsewhere. I have no comment on whether the side letters were legal/illegal under the rules of the Scottish FA. I'm not qualified to answer that.

In all the schemes I've seen contractors used, none of them have the same fact pattern as the Murray Group case, none have side letters, the trust arrangements, loan arrangements and loan terms are all different. Consequently the article expressed my OPINION that it would be difficult for HMRC to apply the Murray Group decision to the facts of most (not all) trust/loan schemes.

In my dealings with contractors I have always been careful to declare my interest be that personal, professional or commercial. I have not hidden any of these points. Regular members of this website and contributors to the forum are well aware of my position and will take into account my motivations in anything I produce, even if I did not make such declarations.

I therefore REJECT your insinuation that it was a cynical piece of advertising. I suggest that view has more to do with your attitude and approach than mine.

However, you are entitled to your view and eventually who knows, your rather bold assertion that all contractor EBT schemes (whatever they are) have been decided on the basis of a case about PAYE due on employees might be right. I don't think so but then again I prefer to apply logic and analysis to facts rather than rely upon rumour from unknown and for I know unreliable sources.

Where have I said that? I have been very very clear at each point that the rangers case was different due to the side letters, you seem to be claiming different. Where? Point me to my posts!

Let's disclose the facts, are you making money from EBT claims?

[minestrone]

This is not your OPINION, you cannot REJECT this, it is the verdict of the Scottish Court of Session, it is now the law of the land...

We accordingly conclude that the primary argument presented for HMRC is correct: the payments made by the respondents to the Trustee of the Principal Trust in respect of employees were emoluments or earnings, and are accordingly subject to income tax. Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment.

You are not in position to object, you cannot complain, your wittering's on the internet mean nothing.

[minestrone]

Is that "reliable and verifiable information"

[jonnieboy]

"with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment"

I just woke up when I read that...

[jbryce]

"with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment"

I just woke up when I read that...

...this is going to run and run....