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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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