When are the full facts due out so we can deride the clubs that need to go and sit on the naughty stair?

Surely given the lack of growth in the UK economy we need to be making the tax system more competitive to attract the top talent into the UK.

The economy won't recover if you tax the likes of Michael Monaghan and George Carmont off our shores.

Are you on glue?

Good question - I can't wait! It's like Christmas has come early!

But how would you be able to afford Richards and Tomkins after you were forced to get rid of said 4 or 5 players to bring you just and so under the cap, it takes the pee really, you've got a club that is so obviously over the cap limit and surely making dodgy payments and yet they have only ever managed to win 2 play off games, shocking

The more they hate us the better. They only have a sport because of Wigan. Like most of the great things in life, Wigan will never be appreciated by those that depend on us.

Because the powers that be care more about 'equality' than they do about success. The problem with a truly successful sport is that its highly likely that Wigan would be very dominant in that sport - perhaps never quite as dominant as we once were, but at least the equivalent of Manchester United in football. They'd rather see the sport remain a 3rd-rate commercial operation than see Wigan dominate.

I don't think non payment of PAYE is specifically allowed by the rules. That would fall outside the rules that say a club must meet its obligations to the tax man. So while the rules may say assumptions about tax statuses can be made I would not think that trumps evasion of PAYE obligations.

I actually had an email conversation with the RFL salary cap coordinator about this years ago when it first surfaced as an issue. I still have the emails and one of the things said is clubs took advice over the tax status of certain payments and some concluded they were taxable and some that they were not and we have had clubs taking a different view and acting differently for years because of this.

It looks like the cautious clubs have been vindicated and the others have cash to find.

It also means there has never been a level playing field the cap is supposed to deliver. The fact that all clubs acted in what they deemed good faith over tax depending on how they interpreted the advice given does not alter that and nor does the fact the rules are vague enough to assume things.

The argument against the non-cautious approach was always "the rules allow it and the advice says its legal so its tough luck if all clubs don't take advantage".

Well I said that wasn't sensible back then and it looks like I was right.

That makes sense to me but i want to know are we a sensible one or a stupid one?

struggling to get y head round this.

image rights ???????

why does this affect clubs?.....surely image rights are paid by a sponsor? and are therefore a bit of a bonus for certain players and NOT part of their contracted wage?
If they've fiddled the taxman, then its the player who's to blame..not his club.

We were in the sensible set but I think we did dabble a small amount toward the end of the DW/Mo era or around the start of the IL era. Nothing like the extent some clubs are supposed to have done this.

As long as we are ok im not bothered

Hopefully theres a few in for a shock who took the high road when we had a few problems.

The club effectively buys the image rights off the player. That is the player gives his club his image rights and so the club pays him for them.

So as the club is paying him money it is (now) deemed as taxable income and so as his employer they ought to have collected PAYE. The fact they didn't means they are liable as it is employers who are deemed to have not paid enough PAYE. They may try and go back to the player to get the cash but they would have a pretty hard time doing so as he would say he was contracted to receive the [unet [/uincome he actually got.

Tax has to be paid on whatever he was paid as income so if he got £50K tax free for image rights then assuming he already earns £50K in wages he is taxed on then there is now a tax bill of £20K (40% of £50K) and the tax man will chase the club for it.

So assuming that the Salary Cap counts gross wages not net, the clubs that have paid large amounts in image rights whilst not paying the PAYE (unless the player in question backed back the deficit, which as you point out is unlikely) then by the club paying the owed PAYE monies to the taxman thus increasing the gross payments (retrospectively) would put those clubs, potentially (assuming they were at the cap limit already) over the cap?

I agree.
You won't hear any Wigan fans whinging about Warrington and the salary cap because Wiganers recognise that bringing in investment should be rewarded.

If they scrapped the salary cap Wigan would be like Man United, they could even make a song like that one about "United going to see the Pope and this is what he said...". Warrington would be like Man City the noisy neighbours bringing over the best players from all over the world like Carlos Tevez, Kun Aguero and Wayne Bridge.

I don't think so because the image rights payments count towards a players salary cap value. So in my example of a player earning £100K made up of 50% basic salary and 50% image rights payments they would still be given a salary cap value of £100K and they were paid £100K. The problem is not the gross amount paid but the fact tax wasn't deducted off the image rights part.

The rule the clubs who paid image rights payments tax free may have broken is the one about clubs must always fulfil their obligations to the tax man. They clearly didn't.

I can't believe Brett Kenny hasn't posted yet. He's going to love this thread!

So assuming that clubs will now have to pay that liability to the tax man, does that mean, using your example, a player that was paid 100k (made up 50/50 salary/IR) that he didn't pay the correct amount of tax on the IR part (which is presumably the responsibility of the club which is the monies the tax man is chasing) and lets say that's 50% so another 25k would be paid to the tax man by the club, so surely, retrospectively that player will have a total wage of 125k which would count on the cap?

I think you take sarcasm to a level I have never seen before

I can see what you mean and that for him to take home about £85K as he did instead of about £64K the club would have had to pay him more than they did as gross salary but I just can't see the RFL looking at it like that.

The may not even be interested at all and just say this is a matter between the clubs and HMRC and that as far as they are concerned the salary cap value was £100K.

Yep because Wire fans were soooooo understanding when we broke the SPIRIT of the SC back in 2006!!!

Sally, try tipex and ween yourself off the Bostik.

Leeds should be fine if they are one of the affected clubs. They have money 'ring-fenced' for this sort of thing.

tax evasion is a form of tax avoidance as is tax exemption as you rightly put.

I didnt say non payment of PAYE is specifically allowed by the rules. Im not sure why you thought that red herring was relevant. The rules allow for assumptions of tax status which is what clubs have done, and it doesnt trump avoiding PAYE obligations which is why when those assumptions have been proven incorrect (which hasnt happened until this point) the correct amount of tax will be paid. It just wont count under the salary cap because of the way a salary cap value is calculated and the provision for necessary assumptions within it to later be found incorrect.

I actually had an email conversation with the RFL salary cap coordinator about this years ago when it first surfaced as an issue. I still have the emails and one of the things said is clubs took advice over the tax status of certain payments and some concluded they were taxable and some that they were not and we have had clubs taking a different view and acting differently for years because of this.

Always has and always will be the case. Clubs compete, they compete for the best players and will do what they can to get as many, as high quality players as they can and good luck to them. I can't see a problem with it. I cant see why we should stop players recieving as much of the relatively meagre wage we pay them as possible

As any sensibly run business would.