I agree with closing any loopholes, so long as they are closed for everyone, you know, like, say, former PM's?

Whilst i agree, the recent debarcle with Associated British Ports suggest agencies do seem to have an unrestricted liberty at times to broker change and then claw back monies retrespectively.

I agree completely, retrospective taxation/levvies are completely unfair and a sign of an unstable government.

Get ready for more then to be levied then

According to the article 10 of the 14 clubs could be effected and it goes back to 2005.
Iam just hoping were not one of them and judging by our lack of big signings and names over the seasons think we could be in the clear.
I hope Wigan,Leeds and Saints are thoroughly investigated.

Swain

Yup

I strongly expect there to be a "you might vote conservative next time so we'll have some cash now please" tax.

I know of one Hull player who was deffo paid in this way, so it does affect them. Not sure if they are still doing this but if they are they have not broken any rules so there would be nothing to worry about.

I very much doubt the IR could claim any tax retrospectively as no laws have been broken.

Agree with Swain however the three teams I mentioned along with the Wolves to boot, probally run into double figures.

But the point is they have done nothing wrong.

Best hope Brooon doesn't read this board, else he may just come up with something like that

I know for a fact that several of our forigners were payed to companys in jersey only 5-6 years ago

They can back date retrospectively as this can be seen as a clarification of the exisitng rules so all they are doing is interpretting them differently than was thought.
Just ask the people working in the offshore sector if there has been any attempts at back dating of tax from HMR&C.

Not comparable IMHO.

It seems that once again HMG is doing the work the RFL could not.

First, the RFL try to cut overseas players, but that ends up as a fudge. HMG start getting tight on visas which has the same effect.

Now, HMG are basically enforcing the salary cap in a way that the RFL haven't been able to because of loop-holes. As a previous poster has said, this can only benefit clubs like ours who have invested long term in our youth and don't try to break the bank to win the competition. A more level playing field ahead as a consequence of this I hope.

I'm against all this off-shore shenanigans. We all have to pay our taxes, like it or not. None of us get paid in off-shore accounts so why should they? Whether it goes on schools, hospitals, or just paying of some of the ridiculous national debt that our children are threatened to inherit, tax is tax and should be paid because we all have to, otherwise the clubs are as bad as any dodgy investment funds.

We will be 1 of the 10

They do.

But it costs you a lot less if you have paid them free of tax and NIC.

And yes, funnily enough that COULD help explain the seemingly-elastic caps at some clubs.

But...if HMRC rules that the payments SHOULD have been subject to tax and NIC - and they can go back six years - then that will lead to big bills for the tax and NIC underpaid, plus interest and penalties, for the clubs involved.

But then it gets really interesting. Because under the salary cap rules, its the gross pay/payments made on behalf of that counts. So these payments would have to be grossed-up. And what does that mean for compliance with the salary cap? I suggest it is likely to lead to immediate and retrospective breaches for clubs involved and which were at or near the cap for the affected years.

And for those who suggest that the RFL should not action that cos its retrospective, that's not so. Clubs that indulged in these schemes did it in the full knowledge that they might be challenged. They took a calculated risk. Other clubs did not. Those that did will have received the rewards in terms of having more bang for their bucks. They can gave no qualms if it transpires that in doing so they cheated both the British taxpayer and the salary cap, and should pay the price accordingly.

And the RFL would surely have to act, or face action from clubs - like yours and mine - that have already been penalised for other technical breaches, or from clubs who have not been in breach at all.

ps. I would be surprised if your club is that vulnerable here, unless you know something I don't? But if I was a Stain or a Wire in particular, I'd be worried.

Another ps: it MAY transpire that this is judged to be an avoidance loophole which is to be closed, rather than (as is my understanding) HMRC viewing it as evasion, If that was to be the case, the the salary cap implications would be limited to the effect of existing contractual commitmenst which might take a club over the cap going forward.

I don't think any club can really argue if HMRC do decide to back date the tax, can they? After all, we can claim tax refunds going back 6 years, so why shouldn't it work the other way round?

I think it would be a pretty pointless exercise for the RFL to penalise clubs for any retrospective breaches of the salary cap though, especially if 10 out of 14 clubs were affected. And how would they impose any points deductions? Could we end up with some teams, potentially, being deducted points for 6 years? Or would all the points come off in one go, meaning that some teams could theoretically go all whole season and win virtually every game and still end up with no points. Either way it would be a complete nonsense IMO.

I think the tax can be claimed retrospectively, because thats what governments do as in the business rates for those companies on the docks. But the rfl cannot claim that such and such club have breached the cap as they hadn't breached any rules that were in place at that time. Any retrospective payments should also not be on the cap for this or any year, I think the clubs accountants will be charging a bit extra this week.

If its ruled to be evasion, they can and will claim the arrears of tax - going back six years. The Grauniad article indeed alludes to to HMRC pursuing this as evasion - e.g. "...and there are suggestions that they may be forced to make retrospective payments which in a couple of cases could run well into six figures."

Regarding the bit I highlighted - Not so.

IF these payments are ruled to amount to tax evasion, then HMRC will recover (inter alia) the tax and NIC that should have been deducted from the players. This means that, under the salary cap rules THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME the player payments would be grossed-up to reflect this. And therefore, under the salary cap rules THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME a club at or near the cap will then have exceeded the cap under the rules THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME. No different to what would happen if it was suddenly discovered that a club had paid additional monies to a player that had not been declared to the salary cap auditor.

As for club accountants being busy (only) this week - hardly! This issue has been running for many months now - it started in soccer - and I think you will find the accountants for the implicated clubs - and for the RFL, as is indicated in the Grauniad article - have been on the case for some time.

My guess FWIW is that the clubs that should be most worried about all this are on the other side of the Pennines.

I think that's a rather naive POV.

I also doubt that the RFL will do anything whatsoever regarding possible retrospective SC breaches. It would be a huge can of worms to open and impossible to implement without making the entire competition a joke.

How come? Unless you know more than me about which clubs have utilised this device - quite possible given I am only surmising. It HAS been widely discussed in RL circles that Stains have used the Singapore Parachute (inter alia) although that of course still remains anecdotal, and the other club who seemed to be able to fund a squad of much higher paper quality than most others for supposedly the same cap is Wire.

I believe the Pies went on record saying they would not, because of concerns over the tax treatment being allowable, and I recall the Bulls likewise - assuming of course the truth was being told. As for Leeds, I'd be surprised to be honest given how Hetherington rails at those whose conduct does not measure up to his whiter-than-white standards (and anyway, they have the dual-code set-up). Can't really speculate on most other clubs, but my speculation was based on whats already floating round the public domain plus looking at whose squads seem to have more bang for their bucks.

As for your second point - my best guess is that you will be proved to be spot-on.

This was certainly referred to in the press when Wigan shattered the salary cap at the time when they took on Fielden. After "imposing" their penalty the RL were still supposedly looking into off-shore payments then to see if any furhter action needed to be taken.

Surely the tax liability of a players contract his down to the individual player, the club are not responsible for it, they just deduct under the rules as they are. I suspect if I was found to owe money my employer would not be liable for it.

No but they would be liable for NI Contributions upon it. And if they were found to have aided and abetted an evaison they could be fined say the equivalent amount. But that would be far to logical so is probably not the law!