EDITORIAL - Tax 'mugging' by Britain

The British government, it seems, is a bit like Fagin, the Dickens character in Oliver Twist, who maintained a gaggle of urchins, who were sent out to steal on his account.

But the methods of Her Majesty's government are far less subtle than Fagin's crew. The Treasury has no Artful Dodger, a slick and skilled pickpocket.

Indeed, some of the methods employed by British authorities are vulgarly crude - outright tax 'mugging' by Whitehall - which Usain Bolt is right to resist. Under British law, if Jamaica's Bolt, the world recorder at 100 and 200 metres and the current star of global athletics, runs at the Diamond League meet at Crystal Palace next month, he will have to forfeit up to 50 per cent of his appearance fee to the taxman. British tax rates are high for big earners, and that, to us, is OK.

Not the whole story

That, however, is not the whole story. British tax law requires athletes who perform in the UK, unless they receive waivers, to pay income tax on their global earnings, including, it seems, endorsements.

In the past, top sportsmen have unsuccessfully challenged this arrangement and some, like Bolt is proposing to do, have cut back appearances in the UK.

Given Bolt's status in world athletics, it is not surprising that Britain's sports minister, Hugh Robertson - who also has an eye on the Olympics in London in 2012 - is attempting to intervene in the case. He might succeed.

But we do not believe that a waiver for Bolt, or even all the Diamond League participants, is the answer. The law is, in our view, inherently wrong.

We have no quarrel with athletes paying income tax on money earned on the job in the UK, but we would have expected the British demand on income earned elsewhere only from thugs or highwaymen.

At odds

Indeed, this law for athletes and sportsmen is at odds with what Britain allows for its wealthy citizens, who, for tax purposes, claim to be domiciled abroad. They avoid tax on their 'foreign' incomes.

The ruling Tories understand this drill very well. For years, their deputy chairman, Lord Ashcroft, has been the centre of controversy for his failure to pay UK taxes because he is "domiciled" in Belize. So happy is Lord Ashcroft with his status that he reneged on an undertaking, given at the time of his ennoblement, that he would pay his taxes in the UK.

If non-domiciled UK citizens do not have to pay British taxes, "how come" should Bolt and others, to use the phrase of Jamaica's light and power company from its campaign against electricity theft.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.