George Osbourne says World Cup Rugby players are not included in 50% Tax dodge...

Chancellor George Osborne announced in his Budget last week that star athletes such as Bolt would be exempt from paying income tax at the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow next year and that the same exemption would be extended to the athletics event in London on the first anniversary of the Olympics.

Teams playing in the Champions League final at Wembley this year will also be exempt from tax, following requests from Uefa.
However, it is understood that the International Rugby Board did not make any request to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that overseas players should receive a tax exemption during their stay in the UK. The tournament will run from Sept 18 to Oct 31.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs taxes the earnings by overseas athletes from appearance fees and prize money at 50 per cent. It also taxes athletes on a proportion of their global endorsement income.
The number of days a foreign athlete spends training and competing in Britain a year is divided by the total number of days the athlete trains and competes around the world. HMRC uses the figure to calculate the percentage of global income that is taxable.

The Rugby Football Union’s successful bid projected that the economic impact benefit to the country would be £2.1 billion and that the event would also generate £300million for the IRB, which relies on the tournament for 98 per cent of its income.
On top of the £80 million tournament fee, the UK market is predicted to attract a further £220 million in commercial returns from broadcasting, sponsorship and merchandising.

God bless young Gideon.

I wonder if any rugby players would say no thanks to selection for RWC because of tax implications (SBW perhaps?)

As per usual this government decides to tax the low earners, Rugby Players and not the super rich top earning athletes/footballers...!

Sorry I thought that the top tax rate was going down to 45% from 6 April 2013 - so 50% isn't an issue?

Usain Bolt has lots of image rights earnings and it is this rather than his fee for turning up at a UK athletics meeting which he objects to being taxed on in the UK. I suspect there aren't many rugby players with substantial image rights earnings (other than Brand Haskell), so that it isn't an issue for the RWC.

I am not saying it is fair that athletes, footballers, tennis players, etc visiting the UK don't pay a fair wedge of tax, but if the option is stage the Champions League final at Wembley and wave some tax on the players, or don't wave the tax and don't get the Champions League final - then to me it seems a no-brainer. We are better off getting all the spending from visiting fans. Why cut your nose off to spite your face?

I have no problem with the Soccer players appearing in Champions League not paying tax here - they pay tax where they are actually employed and they are not really earning their cash in the UK. I compare it to the business meeting I had with some Italian people last week, they flew in to the country they had the meeting and flew out. Technically they "worked" for one day in UK.


Sportsmen who earn some of their income here - be it prize money or appearance fees - should pay their fair share of tax in the UK.

Where you levy taxation on sponsorship earnings is more complex - personally I feel each deal should be taxed in the country that the company paying the fee is registered. So Usain Bolt would ideally pay tax on his earnings from Virgin Media in the UK, but not earnings from Coca Cola.


Mind you Tax systems are so complicated with so many loopholes that the bulk of us pay our tax, while the rich find ways to avoid it.

I fly to Spain and Italy a few times a year for meetings, no way in hell am i paying taxes to their governments. I have no issue visiting sports people not having to pay tax

So because the IRB didn't request an exemption you blame the treasury? Wow.

Are we sure that they actually have to pay tax?

Looking at some taxation documents I am not so sure, and would like to know where Maes got his info. The players are employed by a foreign body, rather than self employed, and as such may not be deemed to be earning money within the UK economic system.

Oh and EE, I am willing to blame Gideon Osborne for everything, including 30-3.

Source is The Telegraph.

Unless you have a work permit declaring that you pay Tax elsewhere you submit to British Taxation.

My issue is not with whether high earners do or do not have to pay tax, more with the fact that some are, some are not.

The RWC visitors will be given a temporary visa and will not be taxed here. not sure they even need a work permit for this tournament.

I understand your annoyance Maes, but really it is basically just Usain Bolt who benefits from this (and in his shadow some other athletes attending the London GP). the flip side is that otherwise he would not come as we would Tax him more than he is being paid to attend. It is rare for people to be able to see true sporting legends up close - I am glad that some will experience this.

LT

Research for you...!




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/9953435/World-Cup-2015-will-bring-in-2bn-but-there-will-ne-no-Usain-Bolt-tax-break-for-the-big-stars.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/irish-stars-of-2015-rugby-world-cup-to-face-50pc-tax-bill-29155288.html

Both stories written by Gavin Mairs. I wonder what his source was, as our companies tax lawyer says he is wrong. (Though to be fair I do not trust the lawyer)

Maybe you should google search other articles rather than asking your untrustworthy tax lawyer.

There are plenty of articles explaining it to you if you can't understand just one?

http://m.accountingweb.co.uk/article/rugby-stars-miss-out-bolt-tax-break/539469?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+co%252FFxiZ+(AccountingWeb+UK+-+All)

The Treasury has been urged to permanently exempt top overseas sports stars from UK tax to encourage the likes of Usain Bolt to take part in national events. Alex Miller reports.

The call follows the Treasury recently confirming tax amnesties for overseas athletes during The British Athletics London Grand Prix this summer - and which will be used to mark the one-year anniversary of the London Olympics and Paralympics. The event has been moved from Crystal Palace to the Olympic Stadium and will take place over three days in July as part of the Diamond League series, to include Paralympics.

A tax exemption has also been granted to overseas athletes for next year’s Commonwealth Games taking place in Glasgow.

Without the amnesty in place, HMRC would insist on 50% of appearance fees, plus half of any sponsorships or endorsements from overseas athletes for competing on these shores.

Usain Bolt pledged last year not to compete again in the UK until tax laws have been changed. However officials at Bolt’s management company say the tax exemption has made it a possibility that he will join the party.

Tim Lamb, chief executive of the Sport and Recreation Alliance, said: “These decisions are a great boost for athletics and will ensure that the nation will continue to be inspired by top athletes such as Usain Bolt competing on our shores one year on from the Games.

“But it's also a tacit admission that our current tax laws aren't working on a day-to-day basis, which is having a direct impact on the quality of sporting events the UK can offer. Ad hoc, one-off exemptions only create uncertainty and inequality, so what we really need is a permanent, blanket exemption to be introduced across all sporting events.”

Last March the government announced plans to relax the rules for overseas athletes and sports stars in the 2012 Budget. The result of which means that HMRC now takes training days into account when calculating the proportion of worldwide endorsements income subject to UK tax.

Ultimately this means that top sporting stars should be able to compete in Britain without being heavily taxed. While there may not be the stomach at HMRC to be seen to allowing wealthy sports stars to duck tax, issues such as the sporting profile of the nation and tourism need to be considered.

Simon Morton, director of major events and international relations at UK Sport - the agency responsible for bringing major sports events into the UK - believes the government moves are encouraging and that the Treasury is right to continue to consider events on their individual merits.

“Anything that makes it more competitive for the UK to host sporting events has to be applauded. Last March the Treasury changed the way tax is calculated for overseas sports stars - the system has been made easier”, Morton said.

“It takes time for new Treasury rules to be digested and I understand the case-by-case approach basis taken by the government. Whether the tax amnesty should be extended to all sporting events should depend on pure economics. If you can bring in more money by hosting a top quality event than you lose from individual’s tax receipts, then there has to be a case on all occasions to enable that to happen. The current case by case basis is a pretty good one.”

If they just taxed the billionaire likes of Branson a proper rate then they wouldn't need to even think about taxing foreign sports players.

Slightly political, but there are c.35 UK Billionaires, quite why an accountant with 2.4 children and a mortgage are grouped into the same category is beyond me. One group pays very little tax, despite having wealth comparable to many countries GDP, the other with Ni etc all included, will be paying 60% at least.

Bathman_in_London wrote:If they just taxed the billionaire likes of Branson a proper rate then they wouldn't need to even think about taxing foreign sports players.

Slightly political, but there are c.35 UK Billionaires, quite why an accountant with 2.4 children and a mortgage are grouped into the same category is beyond me. One group pays very little tax, despite having wealth comparable to many countries GDP, the other with Ni etc all included, will be paying 60% at least.

Could not agree more.

That's without starting on corporate tax...!

Why haven't the IRB applied for an exemption? Surely this is this issue as Efferv. elephant said.

Rugby fans should be looking at their own body before laying the blame elsewhere. You don't ask you don't get. Total amateurism.

Tax residency / domiciliation is complex for individuals, more so for corporations . Back to individuals, visiting UK, be they Russian and other businessmen, sports stars, or wealthy individuals, where income derives from a number of countries, the default vanilla position in most jurisdictions is that you are taxed in your country of residency. If that is Switzerland (F1 drivers, Tennis stars) Luxembourg (Euro business men), Cypress (Russians) Channel Isles (old wealthy Brits) then lucky old you. You can visit UK for brief periods and not be deemed tax resident. If your income is via a registered corporation, even luckier you, as you have even more legitimate wheezes to exploit and park your income in low tax locations. If you are a US citizen then uniquely, you are taxed by Uncle Sam wherever you reside.

The registered coorporation is the way to go Gregor. For me the whole system is based on an outdated system of finance and 'taxes on the wealthy' are nothing of the sort, just clobbers those who can't afford an accountant to park it offshore for them.

Anyway back to the rugby, as Trev says if you don't ask you don't get. The whole rugby system is very amateur in that regard, little business sense.

Maybe F1 drivers are smarter than rugby players. Well richer anyway.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Why haven't the IRB applied for an exemption? Surely this is this issue as Efferv. elephant said.

Rugby fans should be looking at their own body before laying the blame elsewhere. You don't ask you don't get. Total amateurism.

Maybe it's a cunning plan by the RFU to make Dan Carter (who does make a relatively large amoutn of money from image rights etc) retire before 2015

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Why haven't the IRB applied for an exemption? Surely this is this issue as Efferv. elephant said.

Rugby fans should be looking at their own body before laying the blame elsewhere. You don't ask you don't get. Total amateurism.

Maybe it's a cunning plan by the RFU to make Dan Carter (who does make a relatively large amoutn of money from image rights etc) retire before 2015

Pete C, It would be very unfortunate if that were to happen.

Trev, the RFU are hosting, it is officially their tournament.

Lets just face facts. All politicians should be treated by default as self-seeking, money-grubbing wainkers.

All they have to do is progressively climb in our esteem.

Has any one of the current crop reached the Isthmian League yet?

maestegmafia wrote:Maybe you should google search other articles rather than asking your untrustworthy tax lawyer.

There are plenty of articles explaining it to you if you can't understand just one?

http://m.accountingweb.co.uk/article/rugby-stars-miss-out-bolt-tax-break/539469?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+co%252FFxiZ+(AccountingWeb+UK+-+All)

Maes, every report I read either quotes the Telegraph or is a word for word copy.

My confusion comes because I know that the last US Ryder cup team were paid by the USPGA to appear in the Celtic Manor Ryder Cup yet did not have to pay tax - nor was there any explicit exemption. Visiting Golfers do however have to pay tax on any tournament winnings made here. Of course Gideon could have changed the rules since the, but as far as I know none of the visiting rugby players involved in the AIs had any issues.

(PS what is the highest rate of tax in NZ? Maybe they are taxed less if they have to pay here rather than there)

maestegmafia wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Why haven't the IRB applied for an exemption? Surely this is this issue as Efferv. elephant said.

Rugby fans should be looking at their own body before laying the blame elsewhere. You don't ask you don't get. Total amateurism.

Maybe it's a cunning plan by the RFU to make Dan Carter (who does make a relatively large amoutn of money from image rights etc) retire before 2015

Pete C, It would be very unfortunate if that were to happen.

Trev, the RFU are hosting, it is officially their tournament.

I was joking Maes.


As far as the hosting thing goes, I assume there's been a separate hosting company set up, owned by the RFU and IRB to handle all the organisation - that's what NZ did last time, with Martin Sneddon* running RWC2011 Ltd.


*NZ Cricket's management has never recovered since he resigned as NZC CEO to take on the RWC job.

LT maybe you should post a link on the Ryder cup team. I don't think they played post budget so probably absolutely nothing to do with this.

Not sure why or what you are questioning?

Are you questioning the validity of this news?

Don't worry guys. There'll always be a loophole left to allow the rich to sneak through.

That's what democracy's for.

LondonTiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Maybe you should google search other articles rather than asking your untrustworthy tax lawyer.

There are plenty of articles explaining it to you if you can't understand just one?

http://m.accountingweb.co.uk/article/rugby-stars-miss-out-bolt-tax-break/539469?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+co%252FFxiZ+(AccountingWeb+UK+-+All)

Maes, every report I read either quotes the Telegraph or is a word for word copy.

My confusion comes because I know that the last US Ryder cup team were paid by the USPGA to appear in the Celtic Manor Ryder Cup yet did not have to pay tax - nor was there any explicit exemption. Visiting Golfers do however have to pay tax on any tournament winnings made here. Of course Gideon could have changed the rules since the, but as far as I know none of the visiting rugby players involved in the AIs had any issues.

(PS what is the highest rate of tax in NZ? Maybe they are taxed less if they have to pay here rather than there)

Top tax rate in NZ is 33%, for both personal and corporate rates. At current exchange rates the top rate kicks in at not far off the £40k it starts at in the UK. NZ residents are taxed on their global earnings too, so if the Treasury demanded a slice the players could wind up paying twice.

There is an agreement between the G20 countries stating individuals and organisations shoudl not be taxed twice in the same income. (NZ not g20 but should still apply)


Of course the real issue is getting some of the buggers to pay once.

Who - which player would not play for his country for free* in a World Cup?

'Capitalism gorn mad' - Daily Mail

[ed] * no personal cost

With two and a half years (and several budgets and an election) to go before RWC2015, isn't this a bit premature. Plenty of time to sort it out.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:With two and a half years (and several budgets and an election) to go before RWC2015, isn't this a bit premature. Plenty of time to sort it out.

Good job the UK is not in the EZ then.