Taxation Of World Cup Players

 

I was reading a U.S. Representative criticizing the taxation of FIFA winnings:

We want to encourage these people to come over here and spend their money, and then we take a big chunk of it.”

I get it, but I would like to hear more about taking a big chunk of residents’ money before overly concerning ourselves with nonresidents.

Let’s take a (very) general walkthrough of the taxation of FIFA players.

Resident versus Nonresident

A resident of the U.S. is taxed on worldwide income. It doesn’t matter whether you work in the U.S.; in fact, it doesn’t matter if you live in the U.S. If you are a resident, you are subject to U.S. tax.

The easiest way to be a resident is to be born here - a citizen. There are special rules for U.S. births who did not grow up here, but we will leave that issue alone.

The next way is to obtain a green card, which requires one to go through the immigration system.

A third way is to spend too much time here – which the tax Code terms “substantial presence.” There is math involved, as follows:

·      Present in the US for at least 31 days during the calendar year, AND

·      Present in the US for at least 183 days during the current and preceding two years. Days in the preceding year count at a 1/3 rate; days in the second preceding year count at a 1/6 rate.

Have a German company send an employee to a U.S. office for two or three years and he/she will likely meet the substantial presence test. He or she is not a U.S. citizen but is a U.S. resident under the substantial presence test.

It is unlikely that a FIFA player is going to trip the substantial presence test.

Meaning the FIFA player is a nonresident.

And his/her income taxation changes. The player is now concerned only with U.S.-source income.

One can get mystical when talking about U.S. source.

Does a Swede receiving interest from loaning money to a U.S. business have U.S.-source income?

Does a Brazilian receiving dividends from a multinational corporation have U.S.-source income?

We leave the mystical and return to the concrete when discussing services: if you perform services here – say a player in the World Cup - you will have U.S.-source income.

Divide U.S.-Source Income into Categories

There are two main categories of U.S.-source income, and they are critical in understanding nonresident taxation.

Effectively Connected Income

There should be a trade or business as a first step if we want ECI. It can be humble – a restaurant, dry cleaner or liquor store – but there has to be enough regular and continuous activity to rise to the level of a trade or business. That trade or business activity in turn must take place within the U.S. Meet both criteria and you have ECI.

BTW compensation for the performance of services within the U.S. - like playing soccer - is normally considered ECI.

Fixed, Determinable, Annual, or Periodical (FDAP) Income

The easy definition is any income that is not ECI.

Examples would include interest, dividends and royalties.

Think of FDAP as investment income – not trade or business income – and you get the idea. In days past it would have been a check that arrived in your mailbox.

Allocating Compensation to the U.S.

Only compensation earned while in the U.S. will be subject to U.S. taxation. Sounds fair, but translating that concept to actual numbers can be tricky.

Here is one suggestion: divide the numbers of days in the U.S. by 365 days.

Problem: athletes have seasons. They are not office workers with 9 to 5s and two weeks annual vacation. Using 365 as a denominator does not seem to fit our FIFA discussion.

How about using the number of games as the denominator?

Better, but what about team meetings, practices, press conferences, mandatory league events? Should we include those days in the denominator?

Seems right.

How about bonuses?

There is a can of worms.

This concept BTW is sometimes referred to as “duty days.”

The point is to come up with a ratio, with U.S. duty days as the numerator and total duty days as the denominator.

Allocating Noncompensation to the U.S.

We are talking name/image/likeness, endorsements and things related. Chances are these payments are referred to as royalties.

How are we supposed to reasonably allocate this to the U.S.? Lionel Messi and Cristino Ronaldo are already famous and earning their NILs and endorsements without entering the U.S. I could argue that a reasonable allocation to the U.S. would be zero (-0-).

If there was a product endorsement, a reasonable allocation might include dividing the amount of product sold in the U.S. by total product sold worldwide.

I am not as sure what to do with indirect endorsements, such as wearing Nike products on a regular basis.

Yep, room here for disagreement.

Tax Deductions

There is a significant difference between the taxation of ECI and FDAP income:

You are allowed to deduct expenses against ECI.

You are not allowed to deduct expenses against FDAP.

And you can immediately see the tax planning: move income between ECI and FDAP as necessary and as possible.

Withholding

You may have read that the IRS was taking 30% off the top of FIFA winnings.

True but misleading.

The 30% was withholding.

The player still has to file a nonresident tax return.

Granted, the default rate for FDAP income is 30%, so that income bucket might be a push.

But ECI allows for deductions and graduated tax rates.

Depending upon the amount of deductions and his/her run through the tax rates, that 30% withholding might be excessive. The player might be entitled to a refund.

I doubt that FIFA players would have much in the way of deductions, however, as I expect the club to absorb team and travel expenses.

Filing the Tax Return

Nonresident aliens have their own tax form:

If the athlete received a W-2, it would go on line 1a.

If the athlete was self-employed, the net business income would go first on Schedule 1 and then on line 8.

Line 9 is the sum of all income in the ECI bucket.

NOTE: Nonresident aliens are normally not subject to self-employment tax.

What about FDAP income?

It has its own schedule.

Tax Treaties

Treaties can override what we just discussed above.

Let’s look at an example.

Sergio Garcia was a professional golfer and party to a famous tax case involving services, FDAP and a treaty. It goes without saying that the IRS and Garcia did not agree on how to allocate U.S.-source income. The Tax Court finally decided that the NIL/endorsement/whatever-you-want-to-call-it was not so intertwined with his performance of services as to require it to be allocated the same as compensation for services. The Court said that 35% were for services and 65% were royalties.

So what, you ask.

Garcia was a resident of Switzerland.

Switzerland has a tax treaty with the U.S.

Which includes the following language:

Royalties derived and beneficially owned by a resident of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State.”

“Contracting State” is a common term in tax treaties.

Garcia was a resident of Switzerland which in turn was a Contracting State meaning that royalties received by Garcia were taxable only to Switzerland.

That 65% representing royalties was not taxable by the U.S.

You see the power of a treaty.

Central Withholding Agreement

This is a way to negotiate with the IRS to lower the 30% withholding rate for personal services (such as a nonresident athlete or performing artist).

The IRS has a specialized unit for this work, and - not surprisingly - there are fairly strict timelines for request and approval.

State and Local Income Taxes

We are talking about the jock tax.

Most states use some version of “duty days” that we discussed above. California famously counts every practice held at an opponent’s facilities during a game week. The point, of course, is to increase the numerator (that is, the duty days allocated to California).

Certain cities will also pile on, for example:

New York City                 3.8% tax rate

Philadelphia                     3.4% tax rate

Cleveland                         2.5% tax rate

Mind you, this is on top of the state tax.

And tax treaties do not apply to state and local taxes.

Spain

What is Spain’s equivalent to the U.S. tax regime?

Well, the automatic withholding is less: 24% (reduced further to 19% for a resident of another EU country).

The top tax rate will hurt, though. The maximum national rate tops out at 47%, with certain regional authorities increasing it to 54%.

The maximum U.S. tax rate by contrast is 37 percent.

Taking Tax Advice From Friends

 

I received a text message one night this past week.

I was researching living trusts on the internet. It sounds like it might work for my situation.

I had two immediate reactions:

First, excellent. I am a fan of doing your own research and understanding what an expert is recommending.

Second - and maybe more important – use the expert.

The problem with DIY tax research is that you may not know what you do not know. Granted, in many cases it might not matter as much (hey, can I deduct the mileage for my gig income?), but in other cases it might matter a lot.

Let’s talk about the Horowitz case from 2019.

Peter Horowitz was an anesthesiologist. Susan Horowitz was a PhD working as a public health analyst for the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services.

In 1984 they moved to Saudi Arabia. They lived mostly on Susan’s income while banking most of Peter’s salary.

They used U.S.-based accountants, so they knew to (and filed) federal taxes on their Saudi earnings.

One thing about a bank account in Saudi Arabia: it does not pay interest. After a couple of years, the Horowitzes got tired of that and opened a Swiss bank account. They were also concerned about untangling the Saudi account when the Saudi gig played out.

Makes sense.

The Horowitzes did not tell the U.S accountants about the Swiss account. This meant that they did not report the interest income nor did they report the existence of the foreign account to the Treasury or IRS.

Why?

Their friends in Saudi Arabia told them that they did not have to pay U.S. tax on interest earned on the Swiss account.

In 2001 they moved back to the U.S. That Swiss account had grown to $1.6 million. Peter called the bank every year or two to keep an eye on the account.

COMMENT:  I would too.

Fast forward to 2008, the year that UBS got in trouble with the (non)reporting on Swiss bank accounts. UBS notified the Horowitzes that they would be closing the account. Peter traveled to Switzerland and moved the funds to another bank. Susan travelled the next year to add her name to that account.

Peter opened a “numbered” account, which meant that a number rather than a name identified the account. He also requested the new bank to not send correspondence (termed “hold mail” - something the IRS did not like).

Why?

The bank explained:

… these services allowed U.S. citizens to eliminate the paper trail associated with undeclared assets and income they held … in Switzerland.”

This is going downhill.

In 2009 Peter started reading about IRS enforcement on foreign bank accounts. He and Susan decided to consult a tax attorney.

The Swiss account was now worth nearly $2 million.

They learned that they were supposed to – all along – have been reporting that account.

 In 2010 they closed the Swiss account, repatriated the funds and applied for a voluntary Treasury disclosure program.

Good idea.

They filed amended returns for the interest income, as well as filing FBARs disclosing the existence of the foreign account.

The interest income was not inconsequential: they sent the IRS more than $100 grand in back taxes.

Got it. It was going to hurt, so they might as well rip the band-aid.

In 2012 they opted out of the voluntary disclosure program (OVDP).

COMMENT:  The default ODVP penalty was 27.5%. I suspect - but do not know for certain - that they were hoping for a better penalty result during the audit process. Considering the Swiss account had neared $2 million, the penalty alone would have been around a half-million dollars.

In 2014 the IRS sent notices. The Horowitzes, their accountants and the IRS conferred but failed to reach an agreement.

The penalties now became an issue. The base FBAR penalty is $10 grand per instance. The IRS however saw the Horowitzes behavior as willful, meaning they wanted enhanced penalties. To muddy the waters further, the law had changed. What used to be a maximum $100 grand penalty was now the greater of $100 grand or 50% of the account.

COMMENT: You may also know the FBAR by its current name: FinCEN Form 114.

The Horowitzes protested. Their behavior was not willful, and - even if it was - the old penalty (maxed at $100 grand) should apply.

The Court was short on the willfulness issue.

The court acknowledged that the couple ‘insis[ed] that neither of them had actual knowledge on the FBAR requirement.’ But, relying on United States v. Williams …., it reasoned that willfulness in the civil context ‘covered not only knowing violations… but reckless ones as well’.”

In particular, the court pointed to the fact that the tax returns signed by the Horowitzes ‘included a question of whether they had foreign bank accounts, followed by a cross-reference’ to the FBAR filing requirement. It also found significant that, by their own account, the Horowitzes had ‘discussed their tax liabilities for their foreign accounts with their friends’ but failed to ‘have the same conversation with the accountants they entrusted with their taxes for years’.”

The Horowitzes appealed.

They argued that they messed up, but that mistake was not willful. The enhanced penalties should not apply.

The IRS countered: “willfulness” in this context includes recklessness, which standard was met by:    

The Horowitzes never asking their tax preparer whether they had to report the Swiss bank accounts,

The Horowitzes asking their friends about international tax matters demonstrated their awareness of potential issues,

The Horowitzes knew to report their Saudi earnings and U.S.-based interest income from domestic banks, and

The Horowitzes signed their tax returns without reviewing them with any care.

Here is the Court:

… their only explanation for not disclosing foreign interest income related to some unspecified conversations they had with friends in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Yet, if the question of whether they had to pay taxes on foreign interest income was significant enough to discuss with their friends, they were reckless in failing to discuss the same question with their accountant at any point over the next 20 years.”

Taking all of these circumstances together, the record indisputably establishes not only that the Horowitzes ‘clearly ought to have known’ that they were failing to satisfy their obligation to disclose their Swiss accounts, but also that they were in a ‘position to find out for certain very easily’.”

How much are we talking about across the years?

Including interest and penalties, it was close to $1 million.

Our case this time was Horowitz v US, No. 19-1280 (4^th Cir. 2020)