Celtic have demanded a judicial review over the Rangers EBT issues while saying the Scottish football's governing body's decision not to support one is "a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership".
The intervention comes after the Scottish Football Association said it would not support a probe into the events that led to the Rangers oldco liquidation in 2012.
The SPFL called for a review after the Supreme Court found against the Ibrox club for its use of the EBT tax scheme between 2001 until 2010 to give millions of pounds of tax-free loans to players and other staff.
But the SFA, in a letter to member clubs, said a review would be akin to "raking over the coals".
Celtic and the SFA have released all correspondence on the matter.
In a statement on their website on Saturday, Celtic said a review should be commissioned "to consider the events that led to the liquidation of Rangers Oldco and the governance issues arising from those events".
The club added: "This is exactly the same position as adopted by the SPFL board on behalf of all Scotland's 42 professional clubs.
"On that basis, Scottish football could learn lessons and move on. The club considers, however, that failure to carry out a full review of these events and issues, which have been without precedent in Scottish football, would represent a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership.
"Celtic was, therefore, disappointed to note that the Scottish Football Association board has confirmed that it does not intend to commission such a review.
"Throughout these processes, Celtic's consistent objective has been to establish the full facts, which is surely the least that all stakeholders in Scottish football - including the supporters of all clubs - are entitled to, and to learn the appropriate lessons. That remains our position."
Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell in his letter on Thursday to the SFA chief executive Stewart Regan said: "The board of Celtic considers that a wide-ranging review offers the best prospect of drawing a line under this entire affair, allowing Scottish football to look to the future while learning from the past.
"Within the context of Scottish football, these have been monumental events and the reluctance to consider them as a whole, on the basis of all available information, in order to clarify the narrative and learn lessons for the future is both surprising and disturbing."
He said that more information was available to Scottish football authorities now than at the time matters were last considered.
"I find it difficult to understand why a governing body would ignore that information rather than be anxious to consider it. "
He was responding after Mr Regan explained that having considered the possibility of an independent review the board were "struck by the conflicting messages in the SPFL's call for 'football bodies' to convene such a review."
He said the SFA board agreed that the events of the last six years had led to a "lack of trust" among many of the stakeholders in the game in Scotland, but changes had been made to protocols over recent years to "address the key learnings".
In letters between Mr Lawwell and Mr Regan, the governing body requested the correspondence be published and outlined the reasons behind their decision not to participate in a review, but also tasked the Compliance Officer with investigating the granting of a Uefa licence to Rangers in 2011.
"Upon considering the action taken in the past six years by all football bodies, and mindful of the ongoing nature of [the Compliance Officer looking at the granting of the Uefa licence in April 2011], the Board of the Scottish FA agreed at its meeting on 10 August 2017 that a further independent review will serve no meaningful purpose and, indeed, could negatively impact upon the ongoing investigations [by the Compliance Officer]," Mr Regan told the Celtic chief.
"Furthermore, having explored the potential scope of any additional independent review in some detail, the Board was struck by the conflicting messages in the SPFL's call for 'football bodies' to convene such a review.
"I can confirm that we have just this morning received a letter on this matter from the SPFL, more than three weeks after its media briefing. The letter does not provide any greater clarity on the matter and a full response will be provided to the SPFL in due course. It follows on too from Neil Doncaster's private briefing of the Celtic Supporters Association."
In July Mr Lawwell warned the SFA: "The events that led to the liquidation of Oldco and the ensuing events have festered for over six years, creating distrust and a disconnect between supporters, clubs and governing bodies.
"Our concern is that this will continue until there is an independent judicial review, the purpose of which would be to provide a transparent explanation fo the events that were the subject of the Big Tax Case, the LNS Commission, the Craig Whyte Trial together with the processes followed by the governing bodies."
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in its fight with Rangers over the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) in July.
More than £47m was paid to players, managers and directors between 2001 and 2010 in tax-free loans.
However, HMRC argued the payments were earnings and should be taxable.
Rangers' use of EBTs and the subsequent appeals by HMRC became known as the "big tax case".
Two tribunals in 2012 and 2014 had previously found in Rangers' favour, but the Court of Session found in favour of HMRC after an appeal in 2015.
Liquidators BDO were then allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court in London as the ruling has implications for future cases.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article