Now we know why Nadal was so concerned about the Tax levels in UK

http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_33772.shtml

Apparently he had his address as a man living in the Basque area of Spain. Now recently Harry Redknapp got into a lot of trouble with his Monaco account and that was lot less financially rewarding than Rafa's "business", the Spanish press just labelled Nadal's move as "poorly advised", so is it right that Rafa gets away with the tax dodging and doesn't have to face a jury?

"The tax chaos was revealed by Spain's El Pais newspaper. The controversy was sparked by Nadal companies set up in the Basque country in 2005 and 2006 designed to take advantage of a more liberal tax regime for the quasi-autonomous northwest region.

But investigations revealed that the Nadal companies actually did no business in the region, a key component of the lower tax rates, reported to sometimes be as low as one percent. Nadal and his advisers were forced to then change the headquarters of the companies over to his home island of Mallorca, where normal Spanish tax rates prevail.

While no one is suggesting criminal intent, the sly move will cost Nadal big-time. According to the media report, the Nadals "only came to San Sebastian (in the Basque country) to eat the steak."

The Basque tax regime is designed to promote business partnerships in the economically challenged region, but the regime may be due for a change according to El Pais. "

Frankly there is no difference to what Nadal did than what Harry Redknapp did, it sets an appaling example to mainland Spain that he would rather pay tax to Basque than for his own country. Had Rafa not been such a big name then he would have been done for Tax Fraud!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Had Rafa not been such a big name then he would have been done for Tax Fraud!

Is this because :-
a) You know of other people who weren't big names who have been done for tax fraud for doing this
b) You're knowledgable in Spanish tax law
c) You felt like saying it

Josiah Maiestas wrote:While no one is suggesting criminal intent...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Had Rafa not been such a big name then he would have been done for Tax Fraud!

Make your mind up!

Lydian the "While no one is suggesting criminal intent" was a quote from a Spanish newspaper, "Had Rafa not been such a big name then he would have been done for Tax Fraud!" was a quote from me.

Is this because :-
a) You know of other people who weren't big names who have been done for tax fraud for doing this
b) You're knowledgable in Spanish tax law
c) You felt like saying it

- Yes
- A bit
- Maybe

Nadal will probably end up paying back taxes and it would be the end of this matter. Correct, JM?

could you please get rid of the apostrophe in the title, it's driving me mad!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:could you please get rid of the apostrophe in the title, it's driving me mad!

Mad for Chelsea = Mad for Apostrophe (sounds like a greek goddess).

I'm sorry, apostrophes are one of my pet hates: people writing you're instead of your (and vice-versa) is particularly high on the list, but putting in 's when what you want to write is just a plural is almost equally annoying.

Removed the apostrophe, MfC.

I have seen some word processors not even recognise 'it's', just converts it to 'its'.

laverfan wrote:Removed the apostrophe, MfC.

thank you

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

laverfan wrote:Removed the apostrophe, MfC.

thank you

One of Hawkeye's article has 'Religion' misspelt. I will fix that one too. Thanks for noticing such things.

laverfan wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

laverfan wrote:Removed the apostrophe, MfC.

thank you

One of Hawkeye's article has 'Religion' misspelt. I will fix that one too. Thanks for noticing such things.

Thank you laverfan. Is this a new moderator service? Do you think (only when I'm short of time of course) I could send you my articles on dictaphone and you could type them up for me? This would both save time and do away with having to edit my raw drafts.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

laverfan wrote:Removed the apostrophe, MfC.

thank you

One of Hawkeye's article has 'Religion' misspelt. I will fix that one too. Thanks for noticing such things.

Thank you laverfan. Is this a new moderator service? Do you think (only when I'm short of time of course) I could send you my articles on dictaphone and you could type them up for me? This would both save time and do away with having to edit my raw drafts.

Secretarial services will cost you a pretty pound.

JM, people in business do this stuff all the time to try to shelter themselves from tax consequences. Every single business person who can does and should use any legal edge provided. Tax fraud is different than what you have illustrated here. For fraud you have to have intent to defraud. Nadal intended to use a tax break provided for by Spanish law, except that his company didn't meet the requirements of the tax break. This kind of stuff happens in tax cases all the time where the tax authorities say you pay X and you think that you should pay >X. Hardly, something they would imprison someone over unless the guy was forging documents or reporting knowingly false information. I highly doubt Nadal was the brains behind this decision, he probably took an accountant's suggestion.

How much Nadal had personally to do with this we won't know, but it seems to reflect pretty poorly on somebody - whether him or his advisers or both.

Of course anyone can try and take advantage lawfully of a tax 'loophole', but that person must comply with the conditions for the loophole. Some non-compliance is down to mistakes, some is deliberate. The more complex the conditions the more likely a mistake has been made, the more simple the loophole conditions and the more obvious it is that they are not (or cannot be) complied with the more likely that sharp practice on the part of the taxpayer or his advisers is the correct explanation.

We don't know what forms have to be signed or how much room there is for judgment - but the reports suggest that there was fairly straightforward non-compliance.

socal1976 wrote:I highly doubt Nadal was the brains behind this decision, he probably took an accountant's suggestion.

As BarryStar says, it does reflect poorly.

Remember Nadal's family (not just him) owns properties and restaurants and other businesses, so the decision to do this would have probably come from someone in his family.

I don't know laverfan, there are disputes in the way a tax law is interpreted, it happens all the time in practice. And the vast majority of the time it doesn't result in criminal sanctions. That is the point I am making. There are different levels of violating the law. And this often happens in real life with a simple financial back forth and rarely if ever results in criminal sanction it is not like Nadal got special treatment. Most people would be in the same situation they would be forced to pay more than they thought necessary, no harm, no foul happens all the time and is rarely criminal. I am sure Nadal doesn't do his own taxes.

Agree Socal, it would be unprecedented for Nadal to have any criminal sanctions. Such tax events can usually be handled with a reasonable financial compromise.

I am certainly not saying that Nadal is likely to face criminal sanctions, or that he should.

I am saying that on what's in the press the qualifying condition for enjoying this tax advantage was pretty obviously not being met in relation to a lot of the companies' income and that this was the situation for a long time. People like Nadal are entitled to rely upon advice - but if the above is right it does seem that anyone who sat down and thought about this at all carefully should have appreciated pretty quickly that the arrangement was not going to work and should have been abandoned without the need for the tax authorities to intervene.

On that basis it's fair to say that this would seem pretty clearly to reflect badly on someone, not necessarily Nadal himself, which is of course a world away from calling for criminal sanctions.

Barrystar, I was referring to JM's point that Nadal was getting some sort of preferential treatment or that he was getting away with something I would take issue with. My beef was with his characterization of this by JM as fraud or a crime.

This is ridiculous, nadal shouldn't have to pay any taxes anyway.
He's a hero, heroes don't have to pay taxes.

amritia3ee wrote:This is ridiculous, nadal shouldn't have to pay any taxes anyway.
He's a hero, heroes don't have to pay taxes.

Ha ha! He is a tennis god. What's he doing messing around with money. Gods don't need money...

Gods don't need money...

God's don't need to yell VAAAAAMOOOOOSHHHHHHHH after an unforced error in the 4th game of the 1st set....

Real God's tend to shank the backhand though every 3rd BH attempt...