Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] HMRC



BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
What I cant get my head round is why should a player lets use Rooney as an example who would claim everything that he or his company were entitled to to reduce his tax liability but why would he think his boot sponsorship as an example is not liable for tax, or as appears the case most times it revolves around image rights. Why should that not be declared and tax paid.
 

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,239
i gather that for a while ordinary players have been given considerably large "image rights" amounts as part of their remittance, which they can filter through a Ltd company rather than going through PAYE. may be just pub talk. i can certainly see why the tax man would want to run the rule over them, especially if they are daft/greedy enough to not pay any tax from the Ltd company.
 

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
It is illegal to evade tax but not to avoid tax but by the answers given on here I would assume that nobody knows the answers as to what part of their earnings they would consider they are not liable to pay tax on.
I'm not privy to any inside knowledge but the bottom line is that HMRC wants as much money going through PAYE as possible. It's simple to check, the employer pays extra through employers NI and the employee gets hit for tax and employee NI with very very little scope for being able to offset any business expenses against it.

So it's in a club and player's interests to minimise the PAYE and find other creative ways to pay their players. As you have pointed out, image rights and suchlike. There's also tax advantages of being able to offset all sorts of expenses and even losses from other businesses against these schemes if your accountant is very creative.

The problem is that these can be viewed as fake by HMRC - not genuine businesses but just a scheme to move as much money from PAYE as possible. HMRC have a set of guidelines that basically asks the questions why was it set up, who benefits, what makes the actual job of the person using a scheme different...these sorts of things..

I'm completely with the HMRC on this. It's a tax dodge pure and simple designed to make very wealthy people even wealthier.

Is that what you were asking?



Edit - I'm not talking about any specific player, club or scheme but the point in principle.
 

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Mar 27, 2013
51,892
Burgess Hill
i gather that for a while ordinary players have been given considerably large "image rights" amounts as part of their remittance, which they can filter through a Ltd company rather than going through PAYE. may be just pub talk. i can certainly see why the tax man would want to run the rule over them, especially if they are daft/greedy enough to not pay any tax from the Ltd company.

....and add to that maybe tried to be clever and set the limited company (or even a trust) up outside of the UK (in a no/low tax jurisdiction) to receive payment, but HMRC have been able to track the payments to the company and may be able to argue that the payments represent income which should be subject to UK tax (so there could be more than one avoidance/evasion aspect - the first using a company improperly and the second channelling the money offshore). Just speculating based on experience - don't have any info on current cases or arrangements
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Are you being obtuse for a reason? I'm not sure why you've started this thread when [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] has requested that we don't comment on a certain individual's relationship with HMRC.

Some people pay tax and some people try to evade and/or avoid paying tax. People in the latter camp are trying to keep more money in their own bank accounts. Everyone knows that income will be subject to tax unless it is deemed tax free through a government backed scheme.

He is unable to stop himself discussing matters such as this. Every time there is a legal matter. Every time.

As I said in the OP this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular player or club but it appears a general problem within football so why should it not be discussed as to the basic reason and justification of HMRC to act. To me it seems that you earn your money, claim back what you can to reduce your liability and then pay your tax. why should football or players be any different?
 

SeafordBHA

New member
Aug 13, 2011
410
Sole trader? More likely to be a limited company. There's plenty on public record at Companies House, i.e. Glenn Murray's Seventeen Media Ltd, Lewis Dunk's LD5 Ltd

You would have thought, however those are all set up very recently (within the last year). With their respective incomes you would have expected that to be some time ago?

Both with different accountants but possibly someone had a word with the players around that time?
 

FatSuperman

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2016
2,829
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".

The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.

The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?
 


Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
23,683
GOSBTS
Not that this thread is related to anything else of course, but I did think the article that Bozza has put into the sticky thread was quite an interesting read / insight into some dealings.

This kind of thing is NOT just related to football though - appropriate in many areas of business of wealthy individuals trying to be more 'efficient'.
 

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,239
...To me it seems that you earn your money, claim back what you can to reduce your liability and then pay your tax. why should football or players be any different?

they shouldnt be. anyone can and will avoid tax if its easy enough to do (relative threshold for different people/professions). but if they are taking liberties, exploiting a loophole above and beyond the intention of the law, then they can expect the tax man to follow up.
 

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Aug 25, 2011
63,156
Withdean area
Links to Glenn Murray stuff in this thread, so indirectly there's gossip about him again.

Inevitable, as some can't help themselves.

Respectfully, [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] should close this thread down too IMO.
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,499
Footballers have a lot of time on their hands. Who knew former Albion skipper Gordon Greer was also a car dealer?
 

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".

The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.

The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?

What you are saying is that these are 'tax loophole schemes; that have existed for years like the notorious uk film scam , that many wealthy peoiple usedbut are now being closed by HMRC.
 

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".

The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.

The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?
I disagree completely. The problem with being prescriptive is that it is still open to debate about definitions of words and also it doesn't future proof against new situations and also requires the declaration of what is and isn't to be absolutely watertight. With the best will in the world, it rarely is ever the case.

The current system works well as long as there is proper HMRC oversight. The onus is on the taxpayer who has a framework and principles to work within. Yea, the current system allows for abuse but if HMRC suspect abuse then they can strip it all away and declare it null and void.


Your comments about their reluctance to go after the biggest companies is a very fair comment though imo. They should definitely do a lot more than they are doing.
 
Last edited:


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,239
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not.

its the responsibility of HMRC to apply the legislation, nothing more. they do often go beyond the letter of the law and apply their own spirit of law, that another matter. its the responsibility of legislators (government, parliament, treasury) to stipulate the law explicitly. many of the loopholes are created by the legislators trying to promote causes, gain favour and so on, while others are simply to sit alongside other tax systems fairly (such as offshore, non-doms).
 

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
And a quick look at the mess regarding legislation of legal highs shows why prescriptive legislation can be a very bad idea.

Much better to have that based on principles and allow courts to interpret the legislation.
 


rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,493
As I said in the OP this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular player or club but it appears a general problem within football so why should it not be discussed as to the basic reason and justification of HMRC to act. To me it seems that you earn your money, claim back what you can to reduce your liability and then pay your tax. why should football or players be any different?

Offshore Employee Benefit Trusts maybe? There is a veritable cornucopia of scams available. Far too many loopholes in our tax system but the government seems reluctant to actually make tax avoidance illegal. I wonder why that might be!

Try your google and have a look at the Rangers tax case.
 

rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,493
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".

The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.

The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?

"Call me Dave" Cameron declared that tax avoidance was "immoral" but never did anything to make tax avoidance schemes illegal (as tax evasion is). Again, I wonder why!
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here