NFL Players Tax Nightmare - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***Leave No Doubt*** · 04-17-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt57

I guess it is less of an advantage than it would appear to be, as players are taxed on where they play; i.e., eight home games in that state (not 16) and another eight state income tax forms to fill out for away games. Plus a couple more if you have road playoff games, and who knows how they handle preseason games where the owners make money but the players don't.

The wage tax was news to me; apparently it's mostly enforced for the higher bracketed such as athletes and entertainers but it also includes anyone with the team who travels to that state;coaches,administrators,trainers,equip people,etc. I'd imagine that applies also to an entertainer's crew.

Brandt seems to feel the tax codes had some effect on negotiations,if not even having some degree of influence over how tax-attractive certain states were.

Quote:

In some cases, agents actually showed me data from other teams showing how much more the player would make over the life of the same contract in one of those states. In recruiting players for Green Bay, I would always hear from agents how much more a player would make from, say, the Buccaneers or Texans compared to the 6.6-percent state income tax that Wisconsin would take from Packer players.

Players and agents would also try to use their residence in those states toward better treatment on signing bonus payments

Personally all this probably comes more into play from an agent/financial advisor's perspective rather than the actual player himself but no doubt it all may come into play when contracts etc get to the nitty-gritty point, the final nitpicking points.

Now that the NFL is dabbling in going global, does any of this have an effect on international games? Is the team/player required to pay any taxes or monies to that country I wonder?

jmt57 · 04-17-2009, 03:27 PM

I wonder if the agent is state-taxed the same way the player is? I would think he would not be; in that case he derives no benefit by advising his client that the player is better off signing with a team from Florida or Texas. And if he can use the state income tax as leverage to get another team elsewhere to pay more, then the agent makes 3% of a larger contract - while the player nets less due to the additional state income tax.

As pointed out elsewhere there are other factors as well, but I would be curious to know how many players are completely unaware of this, and how many actually consider it as part of their decision making process.

PatsCanDoIt · 04-17-2009, 10:46 PM

I read a similar article a couple years ago in the Sporting News. It was written by MLB pitcher Todd Jones about his unique expenses.

Quote:

Taxes. Some state and local governments believe that if we earn money in their jurisdictions, we should pay taxes there, too. So we pay something in almost every city in which we play. Six games at Fenway Park a season means paying state tax in Massachusetts and city tax to Boston. Of course, we're also taxed by the home cities in which we play as well as the places where we live in the offseason. We like road games in Texas and Florida because there's no state income tax in those places.

SportingNews.com - Your expert source for MLB Baseball stats, scores, standings, blogs and fantasy news from MLB Baseball columnists

upstater1 · 04-17-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

I'm always puzzled over the nation's refusal to opt for a flat tax. As for players, I assume very few do anything but hand off their tax burden to their agent for the accounting and tax law staff to clear-up and provide him with a nice tidy signature block. The agents really do have more than one job to cover in their fee.

The reason there's no flat tax is because of state sovereignty rights. As long as states insist on making their own laws, you can't have a flat tax. Proponents of flat tax typically also remove deductions for mortgage interest, property tax, etc.

Imagine the havoc that would wreak in the wealthiest states. Incentives for home ownership, gone. Plus, northern states like Massachusetts and New York would be forced to fund their schools at the level of Alabama in such an environment, and the federal government would then be forced to pick up the slack (with another giant bureaucracy).

A flat tax would be fairer for everyone, but the massive upheaval state to state and especially the huge transfer of wealth from northern states to southern states would be a political killer.

upstater1 · 04-17-2009, 11:15 PM

I receive income from multiple states every year and it's a huge huge headache. I've been audited by states 3 times and each time I proved I was a primary resident of another state.

Also, the deferral of salary as in the signing bonus situation is something I have to deal with every year and it has nothing to do with a bonus. Instead, because I'm a teacher on a 10 month salary (from September through June) there's an imbalance that I have to deal with every year when it comes to prepaying taxes from my salary. The gov't looks at some of my salary as though I'm trying to defer it. It's a huge headache.