Liverpool FC Forum

[Kharhaz]

Usain Bolt snubs London meeting over tax laws.

Triple Olympic champion Usain Bolt has announced he will not compete at August's Aviva London Grand Prix because of Britain's tax laws.
The 100m and 200m world record holder may not now compete in the UK again until the 2012 Olympics.
New regulations mean the 23-year-old Jamaican could lose more money than he would earn from competing at the Crystal Palace Diamond League event.
"I am definitely not going to run [in London]," Bolt told a news conference.
Crystal Palace organisers had hoped to stage a three-way showdown between Bolt and his sprint rivals Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay.
Athletes competing in the UK are liable for a 50% tax rate on their appearance fee as well as a proportion of their total worldwide earnings - which for Bolt, who earns millions from endorsements, could be hugely costly.
HM Revenue & Customs won a case in 2006 brought by tennis star Andre Agassi. It successfully argued that as well as the prize money he accrued, a proportion of Agassi's worldwide sponsorship income was also earned during his time in the UK and was therefore taxable.
HMRC bases its tax charge on the number of UK events athletes compete in. For example, if Bolt were to take part in 10 meetings worldwide, with one in the UK, the HMRC could tax him on one-10th of his worldwide earnings.
The UK's tax laws have proved a handicap to the country's chances of hosting events. Uefa admitted in 2008 that Wembley missed out on the 2010 Champions League final for that very reason.
The Government has since agreed to waive the rule so London can host the 2011 final, and competitors in the 2012 Olympics are also exempt.
Golfer Sergio Garcia has admitted in the past that he limits his appearances in the UK because of tax laws.

This bit especially:

The UK's tax laws have proved a handicap to the country's chances of hosting events. Uefa admitted in 2008 that Wembley missed out on the 2010 Champions League final for that very reason.
The Government has since agreed to waive the rule so London can host the 2011 final, and competitors in the 2012 Olympics are also exempt.

Right so, in order for this country to attract big events, athletes etc. around the world don't have to pay our countries "rich mans" tax. They get to pay a lower rate. So, in order that the people at the top benefit from these big events the residents of Britain are still being screwed but those who are going to make a fortune out of these events by competing don't have to pay as much and can walk away considerably richer than they already are and also boosting the profile of that athlete.

Am I the only one who is thinking fuck em then? Its the standard tax rate. If your making a nice some of money and wont come to this country as you don't want to contribute, then we should say, don't then. Usain Bolt has decided not to come, fair enough, but the government shouldn't bend the rules because we are losing out on events. I would have thought that in the long run, not hosting events is saving us money. Look at the olympics in 2012. Does anyone here have any hopes that this is going to benefit this country financially?
The figures branded about to host that event are ridiculous.

Its all about priorities for me, and I shouldn't be surprised to see the attitude of the government. How long before premiership footballers raise an argument about how unfair it is on them to be only getting £60,000 a week as opposed to the  £100,000 they should be getting.

It wont be long in coming.

[andy_g]

i think i'm more on the athletes' side here and see it as the UK tax office being a bunch of incompetent again. sure, hit them with the high tax rate for the money they earn from actually competing here but its taking the píss to try and grab a chunk of unrelated earnings as well. what next, do we try and tax bono and sting every time they pass through british airspace?

if it means that it will effectively cost people to come and perform here then i don't blame them at all in pulling out. its exactly what i would do myself.

[In and Out]

i think i'm more on the athletes' side here and see it as the UK tax office being a bunch of incompetent again. sure, hit them with the high tax rate for the money they earn from actually competing here but its taking the píss to try and grab a chunk of unrelated earnings as well. what next, do we try and tax bono and sting every time they pass through british airspace?

if it means that it will effectively cost people to come and perform here then i don't blame them at all in pulling out. its exactly what i would do myself.

Unrelated earnings like 'Tax death'. Feck it, the working class more imperitively get taxed on almost anything possible, it should be that way for earners bringing home a figure with 6 zeros behind it.

[andy_g]

i'm in complete agreement that the less well off people here are also disproportionately texed - scandalously so, in fact. and i'm in full support of the 50% band for the super rich. the system needs some r
urgent reform across the board. in this instance though, i don't think its fair or correct that anyone, rich or poor, should be taxed on money they don't earn directly from working here.

[LFC2007]

I don't believe it's so clear-cut. HMRC argue that endorsement income is not unrelated but connected to Bolt's performances in UK competitons and they surely have some justification in this view. Events carry profile and profile is the reason companies endorse Bolt. The grey area arises in the fact that he is already a global figure endorsed by global brands and whether he competes in the UK or not, the value of those endorsements probably isn't going to change.  Ironically, he wouldn't be taxed on his endorsements for competing in the London Olympics, the highest profile stage there is.

[SouthCoastShankly]

Usain Bolt snubs London meeting over tax laws.

Triple Olympic champion Usain Bolt has announced he will not compete at August's Aviva London Grand Prix because of Britain's tax laws.
The 100m and 200m world record holder may not now compete in the UK again until the 2012 Olympics.
New regulations mean the 23-year-old Jamaican could lose more money than he would earn from competing at the Crystal Palace Diamond League event.
"I am definitely not going to run [in London]," Bolt told a news conference.
Crystal Palace organisers had hoped to stage a three-way showdown between Bolt and his sprint rivals Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay.
Athletes competing in the UK are liable for a 50% tax rate on their appearance fee as well as a proportion of their total worldwide earnings - which for Bolt, who earns millions from endorsements, could be hugely costly.
HM Revenue & Customs won a case in 2006 brought by tennis star Andre Agassi. It successfully argued that as well as the prize money he accrued, a proportion of Agassi's worldwide sponsorship income was also earned during his time in the UK and was therefore taxable.
HMRC bases its tax charge on the number of UK events athletes compete in. For example, if Bolt were to take part in 10 meetings worldwide, with one in the UK, the HMRC could tax him on one-10th of his worldwide earnings.
The UK's tax laws have proved a handicap to the country's chances of hosting events. Uefa admitted in 2008 that Wembley missed out on the 2010 Champions League final for that very reason.
The Government has since agreed to waive the rule so London can host the 2011 final, and competitors in the 2012 Olympics are also exempt.
Golfer Sergio Garcia has admitted in the past that he limits his appearances in the UK because of tax laws.

This bit especially:

The UK's tax laws have proved a handicap to the country's chances of hosting events. Uefa admitted in 2008 that Wembley missed out on the 2010 Champions League final for that very reason.
The Government has since agreed to waive the rule so London can host the 2011 final, and competitors in the 2012 Olympics are also exempt.

Right so, in order for this country to attract big events, athletes etc. around the world don't have to pay our countries "rich mans" tax. They get to pay a lower rate. So, in order that the people at the top benefit from these big events the residents of Britain are still being screwed but those who are going to make a fortune out of these events by competing don't have to pay as much and can walk away considerably richer than they already are and also boosting the profile of that athlete.

Am I the only one who is thinking fuck em then? Its the standard tax rate. If your making a nice some of money and wont come to this country as you don't want to contribute, then we should say, don't then. Usain Bolt has decided not to come, fair enough, but the government shouldn't bend the rules because we are losing out on events. I would have thought that in the long run, not hosting events is saving us money. Look at the olympics in 2012. Does anyone here have any hopes that this is going to benefit this country financially?
The figures branded about to host that event are ridiculous.

Its all about priorities for me, and I shouldn't be surprised to see the attitude of the government. How long before premiership footballers raise an argument about how unfair it is on them to be only getting £60,000 a week as opposed to the  £100,000 they should be getting.

It wont be long in coming.

2 points -

1) I assume when you say "this government" it is a swipe at the tories. If not I apologise.

Regardless the waiver of the tax liability was first discussed by the Labour government as well.

2) How much revenue do you think events such as the Cl final and Olympics generate for the economy?

Events like these benefit the communities all over the UK. The Olympics alone generates an enormous amount of cash.  Extra jobs (albeit temporary in most cases), vast amounts of visitors spending money and upgrades to infrastructure that benefit all beyond the event itself.

If it means making an exception to a few to enable events like this to take place surely there's no issue. The principle can be broken when the benefits far outweigh the objections.