agassi's tax troubles

[chad shaver]

Rommil,

Do you have an opinion on this particular thread, or are you just trolling for a confrontation?

[rommil]

Chad it would be that once your flaw is exposed, you try to wiggle your self in some desperate ways.

[chad shaver]

Please elaborate as to where specifically I have tried to "wiggle". While you're at it, please render an opinion about the topic being discussed.

[rommil]

Don't want to and don't have to elaborate.You know what, you are right. I am just trolling.I'm out.....

[chad shaver]

Figures.

[thatballwas_IN]

chad, you are a troll too.... check previous posts!

[chad shaver]

I also live under a bridge and charge a toll to cross.

[Bertchel Banks]

I also live under a bridge and charge a toll to cross.

LOL

But, yes, the argument that Agassi spends 2 weeks a year in the UK and so should pay income tax on 2/52 of his endorsement income is a bit odd.

Not exactly. I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but from a legal perspective it could be argued that if Nike and Head "do business" in the UK then all employees are liable for imcome earned from those companies. Agassi as a paid endorser for these companies' products is subject to income tax for the two weeks that he in effect sells to the British public the Nike and Head brands.

Then again if soccer players are protected because their clubs already pay taxes, why aren't Nike endorsers and Head endorsers protected since Nike-UK and Head-UK, respectively, pay taxes as well?

If that indeed is what the case is about - I still suspect that he's done some sort of tax avoidance scheme

I doubt it.