Quote Dave T="Dave T"On that point though, if any loopholes are closed, wouldn'tit be the players who would be worse off moving forwards?
Surely a player accepts a salary, and rightly or wrongly, the player and club will use whatever loopholes necessary to ensure that player gets as much of that money as possible rather than the taxman.
I would see this causing problems in terms of players wanting to leave etc. but tough.
In terms of back payments, you would expect that the RFL would allow dispensation, considering this is something that they are clearly engaged in, as Gatcliffe confirmed they are discussing this with the RFL.
People will naturally assume that we have cashed in on Gleeson and put 2 and 2 together about the tax issue, but the statement from the club clearly shows a bit of bad feeling towards Gleeson, and not that they have forced his hand.'"
Good to see sensible debate and posts on all this.
It will be down to what was agreed with the player contractually. If, for example, it was agreed the club would pay £x as image rights to the Personal Service Company set up by/for the player, then that's a fixed commitment to pay x regardless. If HMRC then determine that some or all of such payments should be treated as being NET of PAYE, that is not the player's problem but the club's.
If, though, the contract provided for such a payment to be made "net of any tax or other deductions which may become due now or in the future" (say) then its the player's problem.
Its unlikely IMO that the second option will apply, cos that immediately suggests to HMRC that the club was admitting the possibility that image rights payments (or payments into EBTs or various other payment schemes) might really be emoluments. But it might!
Re back-payments - I've argued elsewhere that under normal accounting rules - and indeed under the Salary Cap Operational Rules - the grossing-up should be factored back into the relevant years. That would likley cause prior year breaches. The rules - on my reading - certainly allow the RFL to do that. But in practice I can't see it happening - both because many clubs may be implicated, and more to the point clubs made full disclosure and we have to assume the SC Auditor did not question then whether grossing-up may be necessary. Again, we are surmising here. And in any case, it would be the mother of all cans of worms - although it might become so anyway if clubs not implicated seek to mount a challenge (although the Operational Rules limit the scope for that). So yes, I am sure you are right about dispensation.
I did not see Gleeson's sale as being a move to raise cash to pay HMRC - after all, you just need to ask Mr Moran nicely for help there if needed? But its clear some are seeing it - and some of the actions taken at Stains - as reducing player spend to ensure compliance with the cap going forward.
All speculation, obviously.
That said, you lot will probably go and sign another top Aussie centre now to give the lie to all that!
