Rafa to skip Queens due to tax laws!

[Bartelby]

Yes, Fed and Nadal at Halle is a good deal, although after the FO and before W is not an ideal time for a match.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Yes, Fed and Nadal at Halle is a good deal, although after the FO and before W is not an ideal time for a match.

Actually it will be a good test for both, as it's a match in a 250 event. Irrespective of their performance in the clay season, they can test eachothers grass form at the moment, before the potential big meeting in SW19.

[origmarm]

Originally Posted by dParis

And here I thought that was Barbra Streisand.

That's awesome!

Originally Posted by Bartelby

What is less well known is that — according to a confidant of his, whom the Mail talked to this week — the designer loved to emphasise his own Jewish ancestry.

Edited for brevity...

‘Johnny knows that Paris designers were exterminated systematically by the Nazis in living memory. To me, the freaky language in a Paris bar was just nonsense — an attempt to shock strangers in bars.'

I had read this also at the time (one of my good friends left finance to study at Central St Martins recently so I've heard a lot about this world of late) but I'm not sure what to make of it.

It sounds to me honestly like he was probably going for shock factor yes and he seems to have been quite conflicted about his ancestry and his life so far. He seems quite a troubled guy in general, whether it be in this regard or just generally in his life.

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by dParis

And here I thought that was Barbra Streisand.

Without enlarging the avatar for detail, I had thought it was an image of Joni Mitchell...she has had a penchant for the pulled-down fedora look.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by namelessone

Actually it will be a good test for both, as it's a match in a 250 event. Irrespective of their performance in the clay season, they can test eachothers grass form at the moment, before the potential big meeting in SW19.

Sounds pathetic calling it a 250 tournament doesn't it?

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Analysis of Goosens by Rubin:

Item: Prize money from U.S. golf tournaments and appearance fees in the U.S.

Character: Effectively connected income from a U.S. trade or business.

Item: Off-course endorsement agreement payments (that is, the ability of the sponsor to use Retief’s name and likeness in advertising and product promotions).

Character: Royalty income, per Retief’s ownership interests in his name and likeliness. As to royalty income relating to golf card and video game sales, these were sourced in the U.S. based on the percentage portion of U.S. sales of those items to worldwide sales. Allocating by the relative amount of advertising conducted for such items inside and outside the U.S. by the sponsors was rejected by the court. Royalty payments attributable to on-course and other endorsement agreements were treated as 50% U.S. source based only on a general analysis of various markets of the sponsors.


Item: On-course endorsement fees and bonuses, relating in large part to wear or use sponsor products while playing golf.

Character: Personal services income, which are sourced by where the services are performed. However, some of the contracts combined such on-course use of products with the ability of the sponsor to use Retief’s name and likeness. Such contract payments were thus considered to be partly personal services income and party income from royalties, with the court being forced to make some type of guestimate allocation between the two.

Item: U.S. source royalty income from endorsements – effectively connected with a U.S trade or business?

Character: As to on-course endorsements, which were tied to and required Retief to play in golf tournaments, Retief’s participation was material to his receiving such income and is treated as income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. As to off-course endorsements, these were not dependent on tournament play or Retief’s presence in the U.S. These were thus determined to be non-effectively connected income, subject to 30% tax as FDAP income.

Can you imagine trying to do your taxes yourself and have to figure out what percentage of each employer's sales were in which country and also try do divide up what percentage of your income was from royalties versus personal services?
These guys spend tons of money on accountants and lawyers and still get sued by the IRS.

[jonnythan]

What on earth makes the UK government think it's entitled to money foreigners own while overseas??

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

What on earth makes the UK government think it's entitled to money foreigners own while overseas??

I assume you mean "earn" instead of "own".

While I agree the rates are excessive, understand each player entering any country hosting a tournament utilizes services provided by the government...air traffic controllers, the airports themselves, and all the infrastructure necessary to commute after disembarking. Don't you think something should be levied to foreigners earning money while visiting another country?

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a major league baseball player here in the US. He explained he had taxes levied against his earnings by each individual US state he traveled to during their long 162-game regular season. He particularly disliked playing in NY because he got the state AND city levy.

[rommil]

I though Rafail is the people's champion......... He should just play Queens and Babbette, batz, Mustard et al can benefit from his contribution.

[Bartelby]

Both the UK and the US levy this tax.

You pay tax on sponsorship income where its earned, not where the cheque comes from or is banked.

It was the latter principle but it was a tax dodger's licence.

Goosens was advised to collect his cheques in Lichtenstein as a consequence of the law being this way so he paid no one any tax.

The new principle both in US and the UK is that if youre promoting a product in a market then youre earning income in that market.

Its a sensible policy, but the rate and how it's levied can be argued.

Originally Posted by jonnythan

What on earth makes the UK government think it's entitled to money foreigners own while overseas??

[dParis]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

The new principle both in US and the UK is that if youre promoting a product in a market then youre earning income in that market.

Its a sensible policy, but the rate and how it's levied can be argued.

It's poor principle and overreaching policy. Now Nadal won't be there promoting watches, clothing, gear, etc. resulting in fewer of those items being sold in that particular market - and less tax revenue generated. Kudos to the British government for shooting itself in the foot - and getting shrap in the eyes of the local retailers.