Page 1 of 2

Bad News - the ATO

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:09 pm
by Squawk
Spoke to a guy tonight who, it turns out, is an accountant with a large firm that provides services to some SANFL clubs.
Apparently, (according to this accountant), the Australian Tax Office (ATO) is very interested in the profit and loss statements of some of the SANFL clubs given that they are not supposed to be profit making entities on the sort of scale that some appear to be at present and may also be auditing the group certificates of players as provided by their employers in conjunction with their group certificates from their football clubs that reflect income solely from playing games. This information will then be evaluated in conjunction with bank statements and standards of living - ie if players are spending more than they officially earn for tax purposes (eg credit cards). ie - the 5 letter 'A' word - audit! I got the feeling it was not so much the players of interest but the club(s), especially if the ATO is concerned that a club(s) is/are issuing group certificates which dont reflect "actual" earnings as measured against expenditure (ie cash).

The accountant was bound by client privilege to keep mum on the particular club or clubs who may be in the ATO spotlight but nonetheless it was a chance conversation that I was very interested in!

I wish Norwood could get that sort of interest from the ATO! No doubt Sturt as well.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:13 pm
by Rushby Hinds
I'm sure it wouldn't involve any players from North, because if it did a disgraced ex-Australian Reserve Bank Board member would be able to give them some terrific taxation advice...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:18 pm
by Punk Rooster
Borat wrote:I'm sure it wouldn't involve any players from North, because if it did a disgraced ex-Australian Reserve Bank Board member would be able to give them some terrific taxation advice...
jealousy is a curse...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:20 pm
by Rushby Hinds
True.

I'd love to be able to pay a $110 million (?) "settlement" to somebody so they didn't pursue me any further...

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:56 am
by Jimmy
here we go, here we go, here we go....

i guess sturt will be under the microscope, since we are the big spenders!!!! :shock:

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:34 am
by zipzap
Jimmy wrote:here we go, here we go, here we go....

i guess sturt will be under the microscope, since we are the big spenders!!!! :shock:


Yeah, c'mon ATO. Do your worst! :twisted:

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:58 am
by Dogwatcher
Say goodbye to Barzaar Blue Baggers!

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:05 am
by ca
Not surprised by this, will be interesting to see what comes of it.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:36 pm
by westside
Port.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:39 pm
by TigerBoss
Hooray for beer!!!

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:00 pm
by mighty_tiger_79
Jimmy wrote:here we go, here we go, here we go....

i guess sturt will be under the microscope, since we are the big spenders!!!! :shock:


you'll be surprised by what they find.................... :lol:

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:27 pm
by dinglinga
doubt if the ATO will go for sturt this time round...

Sturt FC had to repay approx $700K back to the ATO 3 years ago .....

sturt couldnt repay this so they took out a bank loan ....

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:02 pm
by Ronnie
Dinglinga stick to the facts next time, not nonsense.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:06 pm
by Wedgie
I assume that the club that has already been caught having 2 different lots of contracts would be the one in trouble.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:26 pm
by Dogwatcher
Ronnie wrote:Dinglinga stick to the facts next time, not nonsense.


And what's the truth Ronnie?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:38 pm
by Barto
Wrong target, Osama.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:47 pm
by Wedgie
Just on the target of ATO, something which perhaps is more relevent and has only been briefly discussed before is I wonder how long before the ATO looks at hitting SANFL clubs with a higher rate of tax because of the amount of money being turned over for football related activities?
Some clubs will be looking at ways to spend money on football related things just to keep under the ATO's radar Id imagine.
Perhaps trips interstate and overseas or sporting hubs?
Perhaps clubs will look at buying their ovals or parts of it and redeveloping that? (only after purchasing it of course, it would be folly to redevelop on land not owned by a club)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:24 pm
by dinglinga
Ronnie , i would be very close to the truth ....

Sturt WERE found to be owing the ATO over $700K in tax debt

and it was paid from a bank loan

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:29 pm
by Punk Rooster
dinglinga wrote:Ronnie , i would be very close to the truth ....

Sturt WERE found to be owing the ATO over $700K in tax debt

and it was paid from a bank loan

Obviously the Sturt supporters didn't think before starting this thread up....

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:32 pm
by Squawk
Punk Rooster wrote:
dinglinga wrote:Ronnie , i would be very close to the truth ....

Sturt WERE found to be owing the ATO over $700K in tax debt

and it was paid from a bank loan

Obviously the Sturt supporters didn't think before starting this thread up....


A Norwood man started this thread Punky! 8)