Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"In reply to Bulliac: from the RFL? Absolutely, IMO.
From the tax authorities? Getting harder, but I have no doubt at all you could do it. But if your intention was primarily to pay players over the cap rather than to minimise the tax paid by the player, then this would hardly be a concern anyway.
Here's one indicative example I just dreamt up this minute. Its hardly a developed plan, so I'll not warrant it is free from holes but its to give an idea:
1 - Overseas player sets up an offshore personal service company.
2 - Player, via his offshore company, enters into a "consultancy" agreement (or similar) with an offshore company owned by a mate of the club owner, for say USD 20k/month
3 - Player's offshore company invoices owner's mate's offshore company at USD 20k/month.
4 - Owner's mate's offshore company invoices one of owner's companies (preferably offshore but need not be) say £21k/month for "market development and representation services " or similar.
5 - If the owner is concerned that his own company may not be able to claim the expense as a valid business expense, he just has the expense disallowed for tax or else reimburses the company out of his own funds.
6 - The player - being non-domiciled in the UK - is not taxed on the USD 20k/month provided he does not remit it to the UK. So he leaves it sat offshore. And provided he does not remit it back home, but draws on it and spends when overseas (or maybe uses a device like the Singapore Sling), he can probably avoid tax on it altogether.
I just dreamt that up, as a way of muddying the trail AND avoiding tax. Obviously would need more detail by the professionals, and there are loads of variations I could think of. Some much simpler - like handing over the ubiquitous brown envelope stuffed with notes...although that is getting much harder now if you are running legitimate businesses. And it does not have to be confined to overseas players - its just easier when the guy is a non-dom because you can keep the income out of sight of the UK taxman, and all the trails that creates.
The RFL salary cap auditor could hardly track any of this through, could he? If player was asked is he receiving anything else from the club or its owner or a connected party, he can answer "no". if owner is asked is he paying anything else to the player he can answer "no". And strictly, both would be telling the truth. If the question was extended to "are you, directly or indirectly, paying/receiving..." then it gets a bit more grey. But provided all parties keep their mouths shut, who would ever know?
And that is the key really: you'd likely only ever find out if someone opened their big mouth at some point.
But, I stress, this is all speculation and hypothetical - I have never heard any evidence of anything like this going on. But if I was a wealthy club owner, and if I was so minded, I am sure I could put arrangements in place to avoid the cap. But I am not wealthy, and even if I was I would prefer to be able to sleep at night and look at myself in the mirror next morning. I am sure all the club owners would feel the same?'"
Actually I'm very much like you; I too am sure all club chairmen and CEOs are dedicated to being totally above board and can look at themselves in the mirror each morning without the slightest twinge of guilt anywhere in their minds. Then I look at the odd squad, supposedly put together with the same amount of money as all the other clubs, and I can but wonder........
