Marc Methot saving 1.4 million dollars.

[OppositeLocK]

when did I say he was
[mod]
and no they aren’t structured the same

I said $70M as that's the total value of the signing bonuses.

You said $30M which is wrong. The total signing bonus is paid each year.

 

[OppositeLocK]

In the example Marc Methot is using in his his twitter comment they absolutely are not.

And?

What does that have to do with Tavares' signing bonus?

 

[Breakers]

I said $70M as that's the total value of the signing bonuses.

You said $30M which is wrong. The total signing bonus is paid each year.

Try again
"Toronto gave Tavares $30+ million over the calendar year of when he signed his contract"

in 365 days from when he signed on the dotted line he got $30+ million.
I never said total.

But nice try though.

 

[OppositeLocK]

It's threads like this that always make me wonder what kind of advice I'm getting on forums with automotive/electrical material. I don't have a background in it so I go with it as long as it makes sense.. yet it could be so badly off.

All I will say is, if you people ever need tax advice, go to a professional accountant specializing in the type of tax you need.

This reminds me so much of people who think they can manage their own investments by picking individual stocks because discount brokerages are easily accessible now.

 

[OppositeLocK]

Try again
"Toronto gave Tavares $30+ million over the calendar year of when he signed his contract"

in 365 days from when he signed on the dotted line he got $30+ million.
I never said total.

But nice try though.

Lol, okay.

 

[TeddyBare]

And?

What does that have to do with Tavares' signing bonus?

It was an example from the first page that a member brought up. I'm presuming this was brought up because these state tax rates from away & home games only apply to the base salary, not SB's

 

[OppositeLocK]

It was an example from the first page that a member brought up. I'm presuming this was brought up because these state tax rates from away & home games only apply to the base salary, not SB's

No, that poster was confusing himself and I was trying to clarify for him, but he seems more intent on winning some internet argument.

What I was trying to say is the catch with Tavares' signing bonus is it's per year, I'd have to take a look at the signing bonus' rider to see if it's non-refundable, but if it is refundable, it would be subject to the proverbial jock tax, nullifying the benefits that having a "true" signing bonus would bring.

Basically, the question is, can Tavares walk away from the team deciding not to play at all and still get that money?

 

[TeddyBare]

No, that poster was confusing himself and I was trying to clarify for him, but he seems more intent on winning some internet argument.

What I was trying to say is the catch with Tavares' signing bonus is it's per year, I'd have to take a look at the signing bonus' rider to see if it's non-refundable, but if it is refundable, it would be subject to the proverbial jock tax, nullifying the benefits that having a "true" signing bonus would bring.

Basically, the question is, can Tavares walk away from the team deciding not to play at all and still get that money?

Has nothing to do with what is being discussed. An SB is not subject to being taxed at various state rates that said player plays in on away games. Not even close.

 

[OppositeLocK]

Has nothing to do with what is being discussed. An SB is not subject to being taxed at various state rates that said player plays in on away games. Not even close.

Total nonsense. Did you look that up on a sports blog? Because case law disagrees with you:

https://www.hodgsonruss.com/media/publication/434_How States Handle Signing Bonuses for Athletes.pdf

It has everything to do with this topic because people are talking about signing bonuses as a way to circumvent taxes, when it's not the case.

 

[Sports2]

marc probably the last person to chime in on money made in texas as he was about as valuable to the stars as tits on a boar hog

 

[TeddyBare]

Total nonsense. Did you look that up on a sports blog? Because case law disagrees with you:

https://www.hodgsonruss.com/media/publication/434_How States Handle Signing Bonuses for Athletes.pdf

It has everything to do with this topic because people are talking about signing bonuses as a way to circumvent taxes, when it's not the case.

You literally proved my point.
sigh

 

[OppositeLocK]

You literally proved my point.
sigh

Looks like you didn't read what I posted or weren't able to comprehend it.

 

[Pia8988]

Total nonsense. Did you look that up on a sports blog? Because case law disagrees with you:

https://www.hodgsonruss.com/media/publication/434_How States Handle Signing Bonuses for Athletes.pdf

It has everything to do with this topic because people are talking about signing bonuses as a way to circumvent taxes, when it's not the case.

did you not read your own link?

 

[ItWasJustified]

Revenue Canada and the IRS are not stupid

Yes. They actually are. All governments and their agencies are pretty stupid. Take big corporations for example. They pay corporate tax on their profits, which they basically can make zero by using different countries, different investments and different rules.

If any government in the world were at least a bit competent, they would tax corporations on their revenue, just like governments is taxing individuals, because that's almost impossible to get around.

 

[OppositeLocK]

did you not read your own link?

Did you?

"Signing bonuses would not be subject to apportionment under the formula if

- they are not conditional on playing any games for the team,
- are payable separately from any other compensation,
- and are nonrefundable.

If those three conditions were satisfied, the bonus would be apportioned to the athlete’s state of residence only."

It's not as simple as signing bonus = taxed in one state.

 

[OppositeLocK]

Yes. They actually are. All governments and their agencies are pretty stupid. Take big corporations for example. They pay corporate tax on their profits, which they basically can make zero by using different countries, different investments and different rules.

If any government in the world were at least a bit competent, they would tax corporations on their revenue, just like governments is taxing individuals, because that's almost impossible to get around.

Do you work in Tax or are just repeating certain political points and opinions?

You are not being taxed on revenue as an individual. Taxing revenue is an insane idea because not every dollar carries the same amount of profit, so a company operating on a tight margin would be paying more tax than it makes sense to operate.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Do you work in Tax or are just repeating certain political points and opinions?

I don't work in tax, but what I wrote is facts, not political points and opinions. Big corporations can easily cheat taxes by having different holding companies and private foundations in their owning structures, registered in other countries than they originated from or countries where they make most money, countries like the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands, Lichtenstein and such.

 

[OppositeLocK]

I don't work in tax, but what I wrote is facts, not political points and opinions. Big corporations can easily cheat taxes by having different holding companies and private foundations in their owning structures, registered in other countries than they originated from or countries where they make most money, countries like the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands, Lichtenstein and such.

How do you know these are facts? Such a blatant lie that companies are "cheating" on taxes. If anything, they're paying too much.

Don't confuse tax planning with tax avoidance.

 

[Jive Pawnbroker]

After reading through the first few posts I wondered if he had switched to Geico.

 

[OppositeLocK]

Lot of liberal art majors on these boards I see.

 

[Pia8988]

Did you?

"Signing bonuses would not be subject to apportionment under the formula if

- they are not conditional on playing any games for the team,
- are payable separately from any other compensation,
- and are nonrefundable.

If those three conditions were satisfied, the bonus would be apportioned to the athlete’s state of residence only."

It's not as simple as signing bonus = taxed in one state.

For NHL it is. There is the signing bonus, and then there are performance bonuses that can be only added to ELC or 35+ deals. We'll take Matthews as an example. He has a signing bonus of 15.2 million this year. That would not be subject to Ontario tax if that was not his primary residence.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Such a blatant lie that companies are "cheating" on taxes. If anything, they're paying too much.

The G7 don't agree with you.
Tech giants and tax havens targeted by historic G7 deal

Personally, my basic position is that taxation is theft, with arguments for and against that position. But when governments subsidies big corporations, as they do, they should definitely pay taxes, and again not on the profit but on the revenue.

Don't confuse tax planning with tax avoidance.

For multinational corporations, those two terms are interchangeable.

 

[OppositeLocK]

For NHL it is. There is the signing bonus, and then there are performance bonuses that can be only added to ELC or 35+ deals. We'll take Matthews as an example. He has a signing bonus of 15.2 million this year. That would not be subject to Ontario tax if that was not his primary residence.

Yes, that last part is correct under US-Canada tax treaties, but in that case it's easy because it's a US player coming to Canada. Even then, it's not the signing bonus getting taxed in one location like you said. It gets even murkier with players who are dual citizens.

But in terms of signing bonuses and jock taxes, I'm not taking about performance bonuses. If the signing bonus paid on day 1 is repayable by the player under any condition, it would still be subject to state jock taxes. It must meet all three conditions outlined in that article for it not to be.

 

[OppositeLocK]

The G7 don't agree with you.
Tech giants and tax havens targeted by historic G7 deal

Personally, my basic position is that taxation is theft, with arguments for and against that position. But when governments subsidies big corporations, as they do, they should definitely pay taxes, and again not on the profit but on the revenue.

For multinational corporations, those two terms are interchangeable.

I think taxing revenues is insane and would cause so much harm you couldn't imagine it. I don't know of any system that does it unless you want to call a sales tax as tax on revenue. Absolutely crazy.

 

[Beville]

This still amazes me with America, the fact that across all states they all charge different rates for Taxes.

Not to say the UK way is good but, at least everyone pays the same.