Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Great rumour


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 burke

burke
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 11:51 AM

I love a rumour and find it impossible not to tell everyone I know. There are three forms of communication Television, Telephone and tell me. Anyway I wondered if anyone on here could shed light on the tale I was told last night. It goes like this :

HMRC reached an agreement with the Rugby Union for the Union clubs to only have to pay 15 % of the back tax owed on the image rights paid to players over the last six years.

All SL clubs also owe back tax on image rights. The RL got wind of the 15 % agreement reached between the Rugby Union and HMRC and approached HMRC to obtain a similar agreement. HMRC turned us down.

So now Leeds ( financed by the RL ) are challenging the HMRC decision in court.

Also the RL is unhappy with the lack of consistency in the way that different HMRC tax inspectors are treating each club. Wakefield are at the head of the list, they apparently owe the least in image rights tax ( apart from Crusaders and Catalans ) of any SL club and yet their tax man is demanding immeadiate full payment. Whilst other clubs who owe the tax man far larger ammounts are not under as much pressure from their tax man. Apparently HMRC likes to set a precedent in court, ie go after a club that only owes a comparatively small amount, force payment then go after the big boys once the precedent has been set.

Can anybody out there add anything to this tale, I mean would be good if we could prove that the establishment , HMRC, was treating RL in a different way to their mates at the Rugby Union. I suspect that the above may be a load of tosh as surely the RL would have made this information public.

#2 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 7,959 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 11:58 AM

Some facts to go with your rumour
God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#3 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,810 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 12:43 PM

QUOTE (burke @ Sep 22 2010, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
HMRC reached an agreement with the Rugby Union for the Union clubs to only have to pay 15 % of the back tax owed on the image rights paid to players over the last six years.


I don't think that it correct. As I understand it the 15% is an agreed cap between RU & HMRC on the portion of a players earnings that can be paid as image rights in future and doesn't relate to back taxes.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#4 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 7,959 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 01:33 PM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Sep 22 2010, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think that it correct. As I understand it the 15% is an agreed cap between RU & HMRC on the portion of a players earnings that can be paid as image rights in future and doesn't relate to back taxes.


QUOTE
A compromise cap of 15% of remuneration payable for image right exploitation was agreed in rugby union


That's how I'd read it as well
God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#5 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,630 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 02:54 PM

No mention of the Philippines parachute then?
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#6 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,630 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 02:56 PM

Double post

Edited by Bulliac, 22 September 2010 - 02:58 PM.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#7 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 495 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 06:53 PM

My understanding: the 15% is the percentage of the total package that HMRC have indicated they are prepared to treat as being justifiable image rights in non-superstar cases (superstars have to be looked at individually). Clubs who paid more than 15% to non-superstar players for image rights are targeted. HMRC is seeking to treat payments in excess of 15% as being net pay to the player, and therefore seeks grossing-up for tax and NIC as well as interest and penalties. They can go back a fair way, and for some clubs the amounts at risk are understood to be very substantial.

I have posted at length about the image rights tax issue in the past - not least because of the implications for retrospective salary cap breaches.




#8 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 495 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Bulliac @ Sep 22 2010, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No mention of the Philippines parachute then?


Or Singapore Sling, or teh "Singapore Parachute" as I labelled it a while ago.

I think that is a separate issue altogether, relating to residence (or otherwise) for tax purposes? And where (if anywhere) a player is actually resident when he is domiciled in Oz/NZ/etc but has been resident in the UK but is now permanently on his way back home - but is not yet resident there. He is in the air somewhere over Singapore, and the payment is dropped into a bank at that time. When he is not actually resident for tax purposes anywhere...

#9 Gregory Peccary

Gregory Peccary
  • Coach
  • 67 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 09:25 AM

I wonder how much tax Guscott, Carling et al paid before RU "went professional".


#10 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,679 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 09:33 AM

I expect that they declared their income on their tax returns.

#11 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,085 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:20 AM

QUOTE (Gregory Peccary @ Sep 23 2010, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wonder how much tax Guscott, Carling et al paid before RU "went professional".


Probably got a tax deduction for old rope.

LUNEW.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users