Exactly, judging the club on what they have said and done before and not what they have yet to do. Judgemental barstewards the lot of them.

WTF has a possible impending Tax Bill (Which is still way off btw) got to do with his opinions on what you do/don't offer SL?

But not in respect of unpaid VAT, NI etc. Not that your previous board would have recognised the difference.

I understand that currently all the Super League clubs who are threatened with an image rights tax bill have been advised by the RFL and their lawyers not to pay any tax to HMRC. This is, I understand, a fairly normal piece of legal tax advice that is given when taxation is under dispute and then once resolved, the tax is then paid. Now of course, you are advised to keep it safe and sound in your bank until such time as you do resolve things, but if you ain't got it in the first place then of course this is difficult!

So, in actual fact I suspect Leeds are currently not paying any company tax to HMRC but probably do have it sat in the bank waiting to be paid when things finally get resolved.

Not defending Wakefield's previous BOD tax issues... just being a slight pedant!

It would still have been all Leeds' fault even if Atkins had played instead of Senior.

Atkins is a Leeds lad and all his family support Leeds.

I'd be interested in Mr Gilder's thoughts on clubs witholding VAT & NI contributions due to the HMRC even when there is a dispute.

I really like how businesses can delay and even avoid paying taxes in this country. Not many honest employees who find themselves much lower down the food chain have much if any choice in the matter.

I think I won't pay any income tax this week.

I know. Great innit.

Clearly you felt at home with the morons.

I understand that this is general legal advice when a legal and court hearing over disputed tax is pending. Just because HMRC demand tax it does not make them right in the eyes of the law and when you say, sorry HMRC, we think you are wrong and we are going to take this further HMRC have no choice but to defend their position in court. I suspect the reason monies are held back is that they are now subject to a legal challenge. In no other area of law would this happen, so why are HMRC any different?

Lets say company A claimed company B owed them a sum of money and company B denied this. Do you think company B would simply pay up and then say to company A, by the way I am taking you to court because I don't think I owe you this money but you have it for now and then if I win you can pay me it back! What about the interest company A would owe company B if they won in court?

I think 'withholding tax' is different to what the Super League clubs may have been advised to do because they are 'disputing' not 'withholding' and will pay-up when the legal dispute is concluded.

Well seeing as you asked...

If you appeal a determination of tax due raised by HMRC you can apply for the amount under dispute to be held over until the appeal is agreed. So if, for example, HMRC demanded £500k in back PAYE and NICs payments to cover image rights payments to players, you can appeal their judgement and have the debt stood over until a final decision is reached.

What you can't do is arbitrarily withold all future payments of VAT, PAYE and NICs that fall due on the off chance that some of it might end up not actually being due. Well, strictly speaking you can but don't be surprised to find a private debt collection agency knocking on your door wanting to raise a list of goods they can take in settlement.

That appears to makes sense.

Some mistake there surely.

If PAYE is designed to take the tax as you earn the salary, how is it so frequently wrong resulting in a revised tax code the following year, when all details were provided to HMRC on time and in full?

Really... that's the best you could do?

Well done.