http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/real ... 75986.html

We just can't take a trick

Shit I am glad i don't have Michael Malouf's job - we can't afford to lose him either. It would be tough getting another high calibre individual to take on the role.

Caro strikes again. I guess she had to out do yesterday's effort from Mike.

Oh me, Oh my!

to be honest - sounds like a little scare mongerying to be honest.

cant seem them hanging the club out to dry if the ATO "changes" the rules half way though the game - which appears to be the case.

the question needs to be asked though - if we face a $1,000,000 bill and the aint's face a $50,000 bill how much revenue does or did the social club provide to the club? And where has that money gone?

However, surely the club would have some legal rights to contest the bill? Different if it was $50,000 but a $1,000,000 is a whole other set of rules. It no different than buying a car for $25,000 and paying $5,000 in associated taxes, then a week later the car company decides to change the price to $250,000 and the tax associated with the cas is noe $50,000. The ATO wouldnt be able to knock on you door and ask for the extra $45,000 in "unpaid" taxes.

Ofcourse thats all bullshit if we where using a "loophole".

But if its a change of the rules surely the ATO would allow us to comply to a certain date? i.e. As of July 1st 2005 the Social Club can no longer be considered a seperate intentity of the football club if it chooses to have "non-profit" organisation associated to it?

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

I work in the tax area and as I understand it, there was a Federal Court case last year that changed the definition of mutual income. The social Club, if it was just a part of the CFC would have earned mutual income which is not taxable (because the members generate it for their own benefit). As an outside entity, the Tax Office would say the CFC Social club is no longer mutual and therefore taxable.

The ATO can and does change its mind and apply laws retrospectively and all you can do is fight it and change the ATO's view, usually through the courts. If enough Clubs join together and fight it (the Age mention Cronulla) a compromise may be reached.

I would say we are stuffed on this issue.

The positive is it makes it easier for the likes of Campo and Lappin to take a two year deal if they know the club is looking at an unexpected $1M tax bill.

As Greg Chappell once said, "When you're hot, you're hot and when you're not, you're not."

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

Bingo!!

Better yet trade them and draft kids so we can drop our salary cap back to 92.5% and raise the outstanding money that way, if the amount is substantial.

Our list isn't worth 100% as it is.

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888

that sounds like it is legally impossible to do. How can anyone change the rules half way through the game and expect everyone to already be towing the line?

Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Didnt they say the ATO was going to target sporting clubs a few years ago?

Changing the rules half way through the game surely the ATO's case would get thrown out the window.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

because prez they ain't changing the rules, they are just interpreting them differently....sound familiar?

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

That's what tax law is all about Prez. (and why I had to leave it!)

It's constant chop & change.

Wow, molsey that does sound very taxing, no wonder left to restore your life's balance sheet.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

There's no accounting for good humour camelboy.

i can understand changing laws and taxes. everything evolves.

but to expect everyone to follows taxes in 1995 that arent introduced until 2000 surely is not possible. (just making up those dates as an example)

surely this case would be thrown out wouldnt it?

It would be no different than the Police sending everyone out a speeding ticket for going 60 in a zone 2 years ago that is now rated 40.

The only way that i can see this as a plausable case is if the ATO made the changes in 2000 and the club wasnt aware and continued doing what it had done for 100 years.

In that case - then yes its the clubs fault, but any other scenario other than that then surely it would not be possible, from a legal standpoint, to expect them to pay it.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

They'll work out an arrangment to repay the amount in installments over a set period. They'll take into account CFC agreeing to the arrangement and they'll reduce the final amount.

While I don't pretend to know tax law, I've actually been involved in a company that's had to do face this same sort of thing.

Personally I don't see it as a big deal in an organisation like CFC with their revenue capacity.

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

yep - gets back to what i originally said - the article has a little bit about scare tactics to it as well.

if the club has to pay it back - it wouldnt be in one lump some - it would be over a ten year period or something i would imagine.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

Change in regulations happens all too often Prez. A few years ago a number of product rulings allowing tax effective personal investment were pulled, leaving a number of individuals massively in debt and having to repay promptly. ATO has broad powers to impose penalty and interest on any outstanding tax. They can do it, often do it and we pay the penalty.

It may be scaremongering Scott, you're probably right and the Club can contest. But remember in any settlement ATO has rights to interest on outstanding amount and ATO ranks in priority to just about eveeryone in a financial sense.

The Club would do well to fight this one strongly.

if they dont fight it - i will be utterly convinced that our current board is as hard as a wet lettuce leaf

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod

Hmmmm, so you are a tax law specialist? Any idea what the leagl cost of fighting the ATO are? If the ruling is based on a Federal Court case there is a good chance a legal battle is a waste of money. The cLub will probably take legal advice and then decide. The above statement is a little like JE who fought every case he lost until he ran out of money. Fighting a case like this can cost you far more (and you do NOT get reimbursed if you win) then the tax you might have re-pay.

Sing along..........."put another log on the fire"



I hope that light at the end of the tunnel is not a train coming!

_________________
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

I too once worked in tax law. The ATO often catch businesses and individuals out this way with rulings such as this one. I wonder if anyone on the Finance Committee was aware that the Tax Office was deliberating on the non-profit nature of social clubs? From the report, it would appear the social club is one of the most successful going around. If so, it may be possible to finance some or all of the tax debt through the social club, especially since the social club is now considered a separate entity from the football club for tax purposes. This shouldn't be too hard if it is turning a decent profit.

All possible options need to be considered.

I wonder how Carlton have structured the financial relationship between the social club and the football club? I take it the social club has been carrying the club's operating losses in the football club?

verbs, the clubs financial arm is the social club board.
The footy board runs the football.
the cricket board run the cricket.

Three separate entities

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Which, as I said, means the social club carries the football club financially.