Templeton7|RFC wrote: Neil Patey, Ernst & Young, said: "By a majority of two to one, the tribunal has decided that the EBTs were loans and not taxable as remuneration so there is no additional tax to pay. Rangers have won the case."
So Maestro, the last year and a half that you have lied to everyone was a waste of your time. I expect you're a little livid/seething at the verdict.
It's the players who are liable, not the club.
No cheating here, Rangers Then, Rangers Now, Rangers Forever! Established. 1872.
RFC won the tax case, the ruling still declared that players were invalidly registered so titles will be striped.
How have I lied? Tell me what I've lied about?
Or are you going to keep me on your ignore list and fire insults at me without being able to take them back, like a little girl?
Tony McKelvie @TonyMcKelvie
In summary, FTT find only some payments to players deemed liable to Tax & NIC £TBD. The dynamite is the impact of the findings on Football
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Read page 58 - holds that advances to certain players are taxable i.e. these players were not legally paid.
BBC Sportsound @bbcsportsound
Rangers tax case verdict: it could mean players and staff will have to repay the money they earned to the club's liquidators.
The crucial part and all that I care about is what happens to the titles, players were still invalidly registered, side contracts were HIDDEN from the authorities
Gordon Waddell @GordonWaddell
Presumably despite Rangers loans being deemed legal, SPL tribunal could still find they were paid outwith their rules. And so it goes on...
161.Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL.
Rangers could have sought a ruling from the SFA or SPL about disclosure of side-letters but, clearly, they had chosen not to
