PCC rejects Rooney ‘tax dodge’ complaint

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has rejected Wayne Rooney’s claims that a Sunday Times article on footballers' tax avoidance was inaccurate.

In January the paper ran the headline: "Top footballers dodge millions in income tax: Rooney pays 2% on some earnings".

The article claimed that Rooney had saved almost £600,000 by receiving £1.6m from Manchester United in loans rather than taxable income over two-years.

Rooney had argued the headline was inaccurate and misleading because the loans were subject to corporation tax of 28%; were paid back the following year; and it was impossible for anyone to pay 2% tax on their earnings.

Following the PCC judgement last week, KinsellaTax Investigations published an article explaining that current tax laws entitle football players to receive a loan from their club through a limited company – meaning they pay just 28% in corporation taxes, rather than 50% in income tax.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

Hair today, gone tomorrow..

RogerMT | | Permalink

Like the hair on his head, Rooney's tax affairs are no doubt designed to (legally) hide the bare truth of his earnings!

Joking apart, I can sympathise with Rooney, as at some point the money has to be extracted from the company at which point he will have to pay dividend tax at the marginal rate or CGT if the co is wound up, so there's no way his eventual tax bill would be as low as 2%, but Joe Public reading that article may well have surmised as much.

Nick Graves's picture

Which is worse?

Nick Graves | | Permalink

public contempt for the super-rich using EFRBS-type schemes to pay lower rates than Joe PAYE ever could, or the Gutter Press (no doubt also employing such schemes!) exaggerating it, whipping up Joe's support for the sort of knee-jerk HMRC guff we have to endure, which only actually makes tax more taxing on TC Mits and his long-suffering accountant?

Funnily enough, it's always business as usual for Gutter Press (Cayman) Ltd & Rooney (IoM) Ltd. And the senior members of HMRC using service companies...

 

 

 

vowlesj's picture

avoidance or not

vowlesj | | Permalink

I think that most people will want to minimise the amount of tax they pay...and if they can do that (and I can help them!) within the rules then good luck to them.  And in response to your point that Rooney's tax affairs are designed to hide the truth ... well the truth is loans are not income - so there is no hiding!

And if Mr Rooney would like some help in clearing up his loans then I can help him do that without a 50% tax charge.

55.44% Surely ?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

I agree unless there is a winding up and CGT applies then the rate of tax must me 42.5% plus another 2% for delaying it. Ignoring class1A

£100,000 less corporation tax of £28,000 leaves £72,000 for loan or distribution to be repaid by £80,000 gross dividend taxed at 42.5% less 10% =£26,000

loan of £72,000 *4%* 50% = £1,440

Tax paid = £1,440 +28,000+26,000 =£55,440

Am I right ?

Presumably the saving is in the Ers NIC for the club ?

Does Rooney actually pay more tax this way than he would as an employee ?

Now I think I am missing something ?

Hiding

RogerMT | | Permalink

Blimey, us accountants are such pedants! I said "hide", qualifying it with a bracketed "legally", because otherwise my admittedly obvious joke would not have worked!

vowlesj's picture

sorry guv

vowlesj | | Permalink

Sorry Roger...didn't mean to be pejorative just wanted to make my point!

And to Kalden ... ummm. pretty much yes, but only if you don't do any tax planning!   The but is you can probably get the money out on an ongoing basis at around 15% cost, including corporation tax and income tax/nic.

 

Bit of pedantry here -

oldersimon | | Permalink

Bit of pedantry here -

1    the image rights ploy goes back a lot further than 50% tax rates - we were writing about it three or four years ago and it's older than that - originally I suspect with non-domiciled players and offshore companies

2    If Nick Graves knows of senior members of HMRC using service companies he should name them and they should be hounded out !

Planning ?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

You mean EBTs and EFRBSs yes ?

I had assumed he had not used these as article did not refer to them. But as usual perhaps the relevant bits of information are missing from the press article.

 

You are all missing the point.

SimonP | | Permalink

Did Rooney make the claim because he was only able to read the headline, being that it was in BIG BLACK LETTERS and was NOT JOINED UP writing?

 

I should love to know where I can lodge a complaint against this foul-mouthed lout.

 

foul-mouthed louts

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Do seem to be highly valued in our society though, perhaps because they sell news !

 

Top shot

mikewhit | | Permalink

Time for Mrs. Rooney to move to Monaco ...

Nick Graves's picture

They should be

Nick Graves | | Permalink

oldersimon wrote:

Bit of pedantry here -

1    the image rights ploy goes back a lot further than 50% tax rates - we were writing about it three or four years ago and it's older than that - originally I suspect with non-domiciled players and offshore companies

2    If Nick Graves knows of senior members of HMRC using service companies he should name them and they should be hounded out !

I'm sure it was here or in one of the trade publications only recently, it was reported that not only IT contractors to HMRC but also other senior advisors were using the service companies they otherwise claim are so crooked! I should have save the article, but I was so much in disbelief I simply believed it.

 

 

No surprise there

The Black Knight | | Permalink

 

[/quote]

"I'm sure it was here or in one of the trade publications only recently, it was reported that not only IT contractors to HMRC but also other senior advisors were using the service companies they otherwise claim are so crooked! I should have save the article, but I was so much in disbelief I simply believed it."

 

 

Government departments are big users of Umbrella companies , the MOD (or what ever it's called now is an example too)

Did you really expect joined up thinking ?

 

 

Nick Graves's picture

Do as I command; not as I do

Nick Graves | | Permalink

kalden wrote:

 

"I'm sure it was here or in one of the trade publications only recently, it was reported that not only IT contractors to HMRC but also other senior advisors were using the service companies they otherwise claim are so crooked! I should have save the article, but I was so much in disbelief I simply believed it."

 

 

Government departments are big users of Umbrella companies , the MOD (or what ever it's called now is an example too)

Did you really expect joined up thinking ?

 

 

[/quote]

 

You are clearly a very kind person, merely presuming stupidity, whereas I presumed malice aforethought.

Bit like Gov't limos & P11D reporting; I expect the apparatchiks are a 'special case' and are permitted umbrella companies whereas you and I are not... 

 

mmm

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Shame a civil action could not be brought on behalf of (the taxpayers).

be interesting to see some tax experts argueing for instead of defending.

probably why we are all still subjects and not citizens ?