Drug scandal rocks Australian cycling

Jack Russell

Marty Wallace wrote:

>"hippy" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
>newsuTAc.53748$K3.39187@fe04.usenetserver.com...
>
>
>>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
>>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
>>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
>>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
>>>it as income, but come on.
>>>
>>>
>>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
>>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
>>
>>
>>
>
>Hmm...
>So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of your
>bike?
>Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
>And travel costs for that last event you went to?
>And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
>did you eat them in your own time?
>
>Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
>
>Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
>
>
>
>
At the risk of being serious the tax office already have this sorted.
"Hobbies" are not deductible and you do not pay tax on the money
received. See a boring accountant for the definition of a hobby!

--
Remove norubbish to reply direct

Jack Russell

Unkey Munkey

hippy wrote:
>>>Unky posted this stuff: Justices Michael Kirby and Bill Gummow
>>>yesterday granted the federal Taxation Commissioner leave to appeal a
>>>decision that javelin thrower Joanna Stone's $136,448 in prizes and
>>>grants were tax-exempt because, unlike sponsorships, they were not
>>>considered "carrying on a business". ... etc etc
>
>
> Furthermore... (can you tell I'm up for a whinge/argument? )

... okay .. you, me , carpark - now!
>
> This explains the reasoning behind the decision:
> http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm

yes, the descision found *against* her in respect of money earned from
appearance fees, sponsorships and endorsements. She didn't want to pay
tax on this money, I think she should, and the court agreed with me.

>
> A point to note: If you were skilled at darts or something and travelled
> around country fairs earning money on similar games of skill.. would you
> declare that income? Is it only because she earned $100k+ that it's an
> issue for you? Where's the cutoff? Is it okay to earn $20k prize money
> and not pay tax on it? $50k?

I can't see why not. Musicians, poets and artists are assessed on all
their income, I can't see what makes sportspeople a special case.

>
> Just out of curiosity - how much tax does Tiger Woods or Michael
> Jordan pay?
>

No idea, but probably more than me.


- Munk3y
... proving that you can't avoid death, taxes, and hearing my opinion.

Marty Wallace

"Jack Russell" <jackr@norubbishtpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:40D4BC19.6050408@norubbishtpg.com.au...
>
>
> Marty Wallace wrote:
>
> >"hippy" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
> >newsuTAc.53748$K3.39187@fe04.usenetserver.com...
> >
> >
> >>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
> >>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
> >>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
> >>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
> >>>it as income, but come on.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
> >>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hmm...
> >So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of
your
> >bike?
> >Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
> >And travel costs for that last event you went to?
> >And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
> >did you eat them in your own time?
> >
> >Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
> >
> >Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
> >
> >
> >
> >
> At the risk of being serious the tax office already have this sorted.
> "Hobbies" are not deductible and you do not pay tax on the money
> received. See a boring accountant for the definition of a hobby!
>
> --
> Remove norubbish to reply direct
>
> Jack Russell
>

You obviously missed the earlier postings. We were trying to establish what
defined a taxable income. At what point does a sport become a job?

Also, a sport isn't the same as a hobby.

Marty

Jack Russell

Marty Wallace wrote:

>"Jack Russell" <jackr@norubbishtpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:40D4BC19.6050408@norubbishtpg.com.au...
>
>
>>Marty Wallace wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"hippy" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
>>>newsuTAc.53748$K3.39187@fe04.usenetserver.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
>>>>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
>>>>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
>>>>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
>>>>>it as income, but come on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
>>>>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hmm...
>>>So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of
>>>
>>>
>your
>
>
>>>bike?
>>>Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
>>>And travel costs for that last event you went to?
>>>And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
>>>did you eat them in your own time?
>>>
>>>Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
>>>
>>>Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>At the risk of being serious the tax office already have this sorted.
>>"Hobbies" are not deductible and you do not pay tax on the money
>>received. See a boring accountant for the definition of a hobby!
>>
>>--
>>Remove norubbish to reply direct
>>
>>Jack Russell
>>
>>
>>
>
>You obviously missed the earlier postings. We were trying to establish what
>defined a taxable income. At what point does a sport become a job?
>
>Also, a sport isn't the same as a hobby.
>
>Marty
>
>
>
>
No I saw the earlier postings. I think the tax office would regard a
sport as a hobby for this purpose. Much the same rules apply to so
called hobby farms. To be cynical I think they become a "profession" as
soon as the income is greater than the expenses i.e. the ATO can get
something out of you, but I am sure they do have a definition. I just
consulted "she who knows everything" and she said there are pages on it
but my cynical definition is a good summary.

On a different subject the reason I prefer to top post is that my
spelling checker picks up errors from earlier postings which is a pain!

--
Remove norubbish to reply direct

Jack Russell

Plodder

"hippy" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
newsuTAc.53748$K3.39187@fe04.usenetserver.com...
<snip>
> You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
> winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..

What's wrong with that? It's easily administered: Just put in a cut-off for
declaring winnings or sponsorship as income at a level where it's not worth
the admin costs to pursue the tax - say, (example only) $5K/annum. If you
win less than that, it's notionally taxable but not pursued. You can (and
should, under law) declare it, but if you don't it's too trivial for the ATO
to bother with. There are precedents, like being able to claim certian
expenses below a threshold without supplying receipts. It's known to be
rorted but it's not worth the expense to audit. I know it's dishonest,
costing us honest taxpayers a fortune, (as WE all are - declaring every
cent! :-P ) etc., but it's the real world.

>
> Never thought about this. I thought it was all down to these guys having
> to give up everything in order to pursue a sport for the glory of the
> country..? or something like that
>
> Maybe they pay with their health by volunteering their bodies for all
> the testing, drugs, supplements, etc. they have to endure?

Tosh. Sportspeople are simply entertainers like any actor, musician, etc. I
see no reason to treat sportspeople differently from any other entertainer.
A muso who doesn't earn much still pays tax.

Check the paragraphs in the article posted earlier that say, "The taxpayer
also submitted that none of the amounts were a reward for services and were
not relied on by her to meet her daily expenditure such that they had a
character of income." and"...However, that of itself is insufficient. Ms
Stone has not performed a service by throwing her javelin. She has not
charged a fee for entertainment"
Of course they are rewards for services. They area part-time entertainers.
Again, no different from a bunch of young mechanics putting together a
garage band and playing paying gigs at the local pub where people pay for
admittance. The band will get a portion of the money made by the pub
(whatever the arrangement - includes fees 'in kind' like free beer for the
night).

There's no disputing that some people are passionate about their 'chosen art
form' but entertinment is entertainment; sport is no different, unless you
exclude spectators and other non-participants, in which case, who's going to
sponsor anyone? Sponsorship relies on somone else seeing and being
influenced by the adverts carried by the entertainer (athlete, actor,
whatever) and being influenced to buy the advertised product. No observer =
no gain for the sponsor = no point sponsoring the entertainer. Simply by
accepting sponsorship an entertainer is providing a service.

I'm surprised you missed putting in the tongue-in-cheek indicator in your
comments!

>
> Remember that people going to uni/school on scholarships aren't paying
> for their education - same thing here?

Hmmm... what do I pay to the Uni every semester? Scotch mist? Certainly
feels like money...

Cheers,

Frank (who's a bad spectator because he hates the idea of watching someone
else having a good time while all I'm doing is watching!)

L'acrobat

"hippy" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:FgTAc.27438$tF1.20121@fe46.usenetserver.com...
> >Originally posted by L'Acrobat Athletes, who can get huge endorsements
> >if they win, are prepared to cheat to do so.
>
> Is it still cheating if everyone is doing it?
>

Yes.

ProfTournesol

Unkey Munkey wrote:
> L'acrobat wrote:
> > I'm stunned.
> Which leads me to another pet hate .. that professional athletes don't
> have to pay back any of the money spent on them at the AIS. I have to
> pay HECs on my university training, why can't they pay it on their
> sports training?
> - Munk3y



you're right. You shouldn't have to pay HECS either. Education is a
community investment.



--

L'acrobat

"ProfTournesol" <deepthoughtpsych@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:bVdBc.34966$756.16763@fe23.usenetserver.com...
> Unkey Munkey wrote:
> > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > I'm stunned.
> > Which leads me to another pet hate .. that professional athletes don't
> > have to pay back any of the money spent on them at the AIS. I have to
> > pay HECs on my university training, why can't they pay it on their
> > sports training?
> > - Munk3y
>
>
>
> you're right. You shouldn't have to pay HECS either. Education is a
> community investment.

That depends on the course. A great many in the community resent paying tax
so some pretentious git can do a "gender studies" course that will return
nothing to the community.

hippy

>Originally posted by Shane Stanley
>> hippy <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote: You can't have it both
>> ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their winnings or none.
>
>Not necessarily. For example, a professional farmer pays tax and
>clainms deductions, but a small hobby farmer does neither. Same goes
>for professional punters, as opposed to the mug in the street. There's
>plenty of precedent.

Did you just argue in favour of the athletes NOT paying tax?

Why doesn't a hobby farmer pay tax? Same reason a cyclist or javelin
thrower doesn't - they are not doing it for the income?

hippy



--

hippy

>Originally posted by Shane Stanley
>> hippy <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Is it still cheating if everyone is doing it?
>
>Yes.

Mmm maybe if you follow the dictionary definition.. but if these guys
have a choice of taking drugs and competing at the top level or not
taking drugs and never seeing top level competition, I know which option
most will choose..

hippy



--

hippy

>Originally posted by Plodder

<snip sportspeople are entertainers explanation>

Yes, I like this reasoning much better.. It might take a while but I'll
get it eventually.. TAX HER TAX HER!!

> Remember that people going to uni/school on scholarships aren't paying
> for their education - same thing here?
>
>Hmmm... what do I pay to the Uni every semester? Scotch mist? Certainly
>feels like money...

Did you fail to see the "on scholarships" in that sentence? I paid for
my course but then I wasn't on a scholarship like some others I know.
They didn't pay.

hippy



--

hippy

>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey
>>hippy wrote: Furthermore... (can you tell I'm up for a
>>whinge/argument? )
>
>.. okay .. you, me , carpark - now!

Do you know how big I am? :P

>> This explains the reasoning behind the decision:
>> http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm
>
>yes, the descision found *against* her in respect of money earned from
>appearance fees, sponsorships and endorsements. She didn't want to pay
>tax on this money, I think she should, and the court agreed with me.

Okay, but this wasn't her prize money. I agree that appearance fees
should be treated as income, just not prize money.

"[t]he grants in dispute were not made in order to compensate Ms Stone
for income that she would otherwise have derived. They were grants made
to enable her to bear the additional costs and expenses of competing.
Those costs and expenses include, as indicated above, training and
coaching expenses, apparel and gear, and travel."

"The Commissioner espoused the view in Taxation Ruling TR 1999/17 that
prizes and awards are assessable where they are received from carrying
on a business of participating in sport. The Commissioner acknowledges
that money and other benefits received from a hobby or pastime is not
assessable. "

So I don't have to pay tax on my winnings.. yay :P

>I can't see why not. Musicians, poets and artists are assessed on all
>their income, I can't see what makes sportspeople a special case.

Even if they win a poetry competition or similar?

>Munk3y .. proving that you can't avoid death, taxes, and hearing
>my opinion.

Plugs ears... "la la la laaa" ;-)

hippy



--

hippy

>Originally posted by L'Acrobat
>>Someone else wrote: you're right. You shouldn't have to pay HECS
>>either. Education is a community investment.
>
>That depends on the course. A great many in the community resent paying
>tax so some pretentious git can do a "gender studies" course that will
>return nothing to the community.

So... where do I enrol for gender studies? Do I get to pick the
gender? ;-D

hippy



--

Unkey Munkey

hippy wrote:
>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey
>>
>>>hippy wrote: Furthermore... (can you tell I'm up for a
>>>whinge/argument? )
>>
>>.. okay .. you, me , carpark - now!
>
>
> Do you know how big I am? :P

hmm ... If you think I'm going to lower the tone of this thread with
crude sexual innuendo then you can think again! :P

>
>
>>>This explains the reasoning behind the decision:
>>>http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm
>>
>>yes, the descision found *against* her in respect of money earned from
>>appearance fees, sponsorships and endorsements. She didn't want to pay
>>tax on this money, I think she should, and the court agreed with me.
>
>
> Okay, but this wasn't her prize money. I agree that appearance fees
> should be treated as income, just not prize money.
>

I'll agree with you there. I'll back off on the prizemoney bit. It just
got my hackles up that she didn't want to declare appearance fees,
sponsorship and endorsements as income.
I think my boss should pay me an appearance fee for turning up to work!

- Munk3y