: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:16 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

My misses who is a lawyer type says that if the law is changed as it is in this instance, the only "crimes" that can be retropectively prosecuted are murder and something similar, i was falling asleep due to the interesting nature of the law but the gist was that what has happened has happened, but you cant do it anymore. No club will have any liabilities for what happened before the law was changed

I've a fair background in tax law myself, being a qualified accountant of many years. If you read the Grauniad article, it suggests that this is not merely closing a loophole, but is being pursued by HMRC as tax evasion going back several years. Example: "...there are suggestions that they may be forced to make retrospective payments which in a couple of cases could run well into six figures."

That is indeed my understanding of how HMRC is approaching this, and its been ongoing for some time. If that is so (and we are still making assumptions at this stage) then we are not talking about retrospective law changes, but failure to comply with the existing law.

And yes, too right - the legal side is SOoooo bloody boring it does my head in! But I sort of have to deal with it as part of what I do

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:17 am  

But what might be different is that the taxman has cleared up the interpretation of the rule.

If that is so, then the rules were already in place, so a retrospective payment may still have to be paid by the clubs involved.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:20 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

But what might be different is that the taxman has cleared up the interpretation of the rule.

If that is so, then the rules were already in place, so a retrospective payment may still have to be paid by the clubs involved.

But was it careless or reckless?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:22 am  

Adeybull wrote:

I've a fair background in tax law myself, being a qualified accountant of many years. If you read the Grauniad article, it suggests that this is not merely closing a loophole, but is being pursued by HMRC as tax evasion going back several years. Example: "...there are suggestions that they may be forced to make retrospective payments which in a couple of cases could run well into six figures."

That is indeed my understanding of how HMRC is approaching this, and its been ongoing for some time. If that is so (and we are still making assumptions at this stage) then we are not talking about retrospective law changes, but failure to comply with the existing law.

And yes, too right - the legal side is SOoooo bloody boring it does my head in! But I sort of have to deal with it as part of what I do

Of course we are all basing this on a reporter who has no knowledge of the law and is sensationalising to sell papers

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:36 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

But was it careless or reckless?

Or was it "against the spirit of the cap"

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:37 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

Of course we are all basing this on a reporter who has no knowledge of the law and is sensationalising to sell papers

To an extent.

But I'm aware from more professional sources that these investigations have been under way for some time, and of the approach HMRC is taking. They started with soccer and have now widened it out.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:10 am  

Article wrote:

all the major sides such as Leeds, St Helens and Warrington, whose chief executive

Anyone else chuckle at this bit?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:30 am  

Wouldn't there be a required burden of proof that it was a deliberate act?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:40 am  

getdownmonkeyman wrote: Wouldn't there be a required burden of proof that it was a deliberate act? Read Dave O post about half way down page 4. It gives a reasonable explanation. http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=402697&start=45

getdownmonkeyman wrote: Wouldn't there be a required burden of proof that it was a deliberate act? Read Dave O post about half way down page 4. It gives a reasonable explanation. http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=402697&start=45

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:03 am  

Adeybull wrote:

To an extent.

But I'm aware from more professional sources that these investigations have been under way for some time, and of the approach HMRC is taking. They started with soccer and have now widened it out.

Indeed, this is not new and has been ongoing for a good 6 months or so. IIRC it started from the divorce proceedings of Ray Parlour.

I can't see it affecting the cap retrospectively as it was accepted at the time, however I wonder if it will cause problems for ongoing contracts? Though the removal of NICs from the cap calculations will reduce the impact of it. Given that it's been common knowledge for a while, I'd have expected most clubs to have phased this out.