Tavares fighting Canadian tax authority over $8m from $15.3m signing bonus

[ZDH]

Spoiler alert.

The government wins.

 

[mouser]

What I am disagreeing with is the idea that all the NHL cares about is cost certainty. If they did different teams could spend different amounts as long as the HRR was 50%

Different teams can choose to spend different amounts. Thats why there’s both a a salary cap floor and a salary cap ceiling.

 

[Legion34]

Different teams can choose to spend different amounts. Thats why there’s both a a salary cap floor and a salary cap ceiling.

And different teams could have different floors and ceilings

 

[lawrence]

Good kid. He use to order computer parts from our company.

 

[snag]

Good kid. He use to order computer parts from our company.

NCIX?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Yes. Income taxes. Because the league is artificially capping income. Not real estate, buying of cars etc.

The league is "artificially capping income" as part of a collectively bargained deal between the league and the players. The league isn't setting tax policy on top of it. If you're going to attribute outside factors as items that need to be considered in the calculation of the cap and say well, state income tax is a really big driver I'd argue "cost of living" is a much bigger driver - and yet, you're not even attempting to account for that at all.

1.) Are you kidding?
A no state tax team has been in every final since 2017 right ?

Nashville. Tampa x3 Florida. Dallas. Vegas x 2

You're confusing correlation with causation.

* Was Nashville able to load up on guys because players thought wow, Nashville is a no-tax state, let's go play for the Predators? If so, why hasn't Nashville been able to keep that up?
* Tampa drafted Stamkos, Vasilevskiy and Kucherov and traded for Sergachev, McDonagh and a few others well before they could choose to play for Tampa on their own. What players signed as free agents because Florida is a no-income-tax state that pushed the Lightning to a Cup more than those guys?
* Dallas has been there once. Did half the Stars team jump to go sign for a Texas-based squad because Texas has no income tax? Why haven't the Stars been back to a Cup? How have they only been to one WCF since, and how was that 2020 Finals appearance their first trip to a WCF in 12 years despite this significant "no income tax" advantage that existed the entire time?
* Florida has been there once. As an 8-seed. How did Florida's income tax status help the Panthers win playoff rounds over higher-seeded teams?

Even if I concede Vegas [which started more or less because Gerard Gallant molded a bunch of castoffs into a Cup-contending squad], you're attributing a hell of a lot of Finals appearances to nothing more than they had no income taxes which is a gross distortion of how those teams really got there.

I’m pretty sure the only final that didnt have one tax free team was bruins and blues.

In the last few years? Yeah, it was Boston and St. Louis. Before that? It was 9 years without any team from a tax-free state. Hell, a few of those (Los Angeles vs. New Jersey, Chicago vs. Boston, Los Angeles vs. NY Rangers) were matchups of pretty high-tax states. How did those teams manage to overcome that hindrance? How did all these no-tax franchises - something the players presumably knew about ~20 years ago - never compete for a title despite that long-built-in advantage?

It's almost like there's something more important than it's a no-income-tax state that drives winning. Maybe it's ... drafting and ... player development and ...... nah, that's crazy talk, that stuff would never play a big role. Gotta be lack of state income taxes doing all the work.

They have been massively over represented in finals. Division titles. Finalists and cups.
Since the NHL did away with the back diving contracts.

How is it that Kansas City has 3 Super Bowl titles in a state with a 4.95% income tax at the top end? How did New England win 6 Super Bowl titles with a 5% income tax? How have Miami, Jacksonville, Dallas, Houston and Tennessee combined for 0 Super Bowl titles, 0 Super Bowl appearances and 2 championship games [1 for Tennessee, 1 for Jacksonville] in the last 20 years? How does San Francisco have 7 conference championship appearances since 2011 while Seattle only has 2 [none since 2014], which is as many as the NY Giants and LA Rams each have fewer than Green Bay (4) has?

There was a run from 2003-2014 when 13 of the 24 NBA finalists were from "no income tax states," including 4 Finals between teams from "no income tax" states. 8 of the 11 champions coming from a "no income tax" state ... and then no team from a "no income tax" state made it to the Finals until Miami did it in 2020 (and lost) and then did it again in 2023 (and lost again). Was that 11-year run because of the "no state income tax" advantage? If so, why has only Miami been able to get to the Finals while other teams from "no income tax" keep falling [way] short? And how has Golden State - from a state that is very not low-tax - won 4 titles and make 6 apperances in the Finals since 2015, while the Los Angeles Lakers [same state] and Toronto Raptors [really high tax, from what I've been told in this thread] also tacked on a title?

Seriously: what makes the NHL so special that it's the only sport that has a salary cap and "no income tax" franchises are raking in the spoils left and right, but it doesn't happen in either of the other two major leagues that also have a salary cap and players also presumably can choose where to play and take advantage of income taxes which, I've been told repeatedly, should give all those franchises a huge competitive advantage that doesn't show up in the year-end results?

2.) even the idea that even if you were right, that isn’t a good argument for an advantage.

Life isn't fair.

Toronto and New York had one cup between them since expansion. Does that mean that there was no advantage to their salary structure?

1. Almost like being able to spend a shitload of money doesn't .... guarantee ....... nah, that can't be right either.
2. "Since expansion" is a really vague term - which, since you didn't define it, I will: since the Next Six in 1967.
3. "New York" could be "Rangers" or "Islanders" - and you didn't specify. The Rangers do only have 1 Cup "since expansion." The Islanders [also from New York] have 4.
4. Montreal, which is in the same relative tax bracket as Toronto and "New York," has 10 Cups "since expansion." Even if you want to throw out 1968 and 1969, that's still 8 Cups, and I'm pretty sure Montreal has the financial capacity to spend with Toronto and "New York" if it so chooses.
5. Detroit and Colorado were able to (and did) spend a f***ing shitload of money in the pre-cap era. The Red Wings won 3 Cups, the Avalanche won 2. Clearly there was an advantage to their salary structure - and, most importantly, they wielded it efficiently.

The point here: your remark is meaningless and lacks all kinds of context.

3.) you absolutely could do it. There are calculators on line to figure it out now. As per year by year. Teams plan for performance bonuses the following year. Cap escalators. Heck a pandemic just happened.

The question isn't whether we can do it. The question is whether teams should be accountable for things they have no control over.

* You say yes. I ask why stop at one thing.
* You talk about fairness. I ask why stop at the ilusion of fairness without accounting for everything that makes things unfair.
* You say "there are calculators on line to figure it out now." All the more reason we should account for everything that potentially distorts fairness, because if we're doing this I don't want to hear bitching in 3-5 years about how things are still unfair and we need to make more changes more fair - especially if it's so easy to do because "there are calculators on line to figure it out now."

The idea that we cannot fix a clear structural advantage because a state/province is just going to wake up one day and change the taxes on its citizens isn’t a good reason.

This presumes a "clear structural advantage" exists in the first place. Simply claiming it exists doesn't make it so; I pointed out how it clearly doesn't exist in other sports with a cap (and I'd make a similar argument for MLB, where the Astros won more because they intentionally shit the bed for years to load up on top prospects to go win a title and teams in clearly high-tax areas are winning titles / other teams in no-tax areas are not routinely competitive and certainly not attracting top players every year and staying at the top of the standings), others have pointed out that the taxes levied by states around the country severely diminish any tax advantages that purportedly exist.

As always, YMMV.

 

[lawrence]

NCIX?

The Calgary flames did too.

 

[snag]

The Calgary flames did too.

Tavares....now Flames. We are really sliding downhill here......next you'll tell us you're Linus lol

In seriousness though, I used to buy a lot from NCIX too. Kinda miss their other sites too like Bestdirect and DirectCanada. Used to piece builds with parts from each depending on sales. Was a pain in the ass being the same company...and having to do that to get the best. price. And then having to also sometimes balance and juggle price vs shipping and whether it was better to forego a sale here to save more by meeting the free shipping threshold there.......but as a business owner I get it,

 

[JianYang]

Yes. Income taxes. Because the league is artificially capping income. Not real estate, buying of cars etc.

1.) Are you kidding?
A no state tax team has been in every final since 2017 right ?

Nashville. Tampa x3 Florida. Dallas. Vegas x 2

The only one that hasn’t is Seattle and they are in their 2nd year.

I’m pretty sure the only final that didnt have one tax free team was bruins and blues.

They have been massively over represented in finals. Division titles. Finalists and cups.
Since the NHL did away with the back diving contracts.

2.) even the idea that even if you were right, that isn’t a good argument for an advantage.

Toronto and New York had one cup between them since expansion. Does that mean that there was no advantage to their salary structure?


3.) you absolutely could do it. There are calculators on line to figure it out now. As per year by year. Teams plan for performance bonuses the following year. Cap escalators. Heck a pandemic just happened.

The idea that we cannot fix a clear structural advantage because a state/province is just going to wake up one day and change the taxes on its citizens isn’t a good reason.

I think it's just a matter of accepting each market's strengths and weaknesses, and move on.

If you want to equalize the tax disparity, then what's next... equalize the weather, equalize the pressure of playing in each city, equalize the notoriety and privacy or lack thereof..... equalize the amenities a city has to offer?

If we look at the market that has consistently attracted players throughout hockey history whether they are winning or losing, it's Manhattan. A place with high cost of living, and cold weather, too.

But what new york does allow you to do is enjoy the perks of being a pro athlete in a mega city, and still being able to walk outside and do your activites without having eyes glued on your every step.

It's really the lack of anonymity, and privacy, along with enhanced scrutiny that I think are the main detriments of playing in canadian markets. It's just on a completely different scale than being a hockey player in the US.

 

[Ducer]

CRA sends me a balance owing of $ 0 but please send a payment of $ 200 letter every 5 months, it's a head scratcher for me but I just burn it in the fireplace.

 

[Legion34]

I think it's just a matter of accepting each market's strengths and weaknesses, and move on.

If you want to equalize the tax disparity, then what's next... equalize the weather, equalize the pressure of playing in each city, equalize the notoriety and privacy or lack thereof..... equalize the amenities a city has to offer?

If we look at the market that has consistently attracted players throughout hockey history whether they are winning or losing, it's Manhattan. A place with high cost of living, and cold weather, too.

But what new york does allow you to do is enjoy the perks of being a pro athlete in a mega city, and still being able to walk outside and do your activites without having eyes glued on your every step.

It's really the lack of anonymity, and privacy, along with enhanced scrutiny that I think are the main detriments of playing in canadian markets. It's just on a completely different scale than being a hockey player in the US.

This is entirely backwards. If you were going to accept each markets strengths you could easily allow teams to “buy cap” or allot different caps to different teams based on market size/revenue any million ways.

The whole point is that they chose to artificially cap/restrict salaries and NHL players agents GMs and media have all came out and said it is leading to advantages. And those advantages have been reflected in playoffs/success and millions in revenue.

The NHL is not required to make a weather cap,endorsement cap, schools cap.
Every market has strengths. The NHL does not need to equalize those.

They chose to artificially create parity in the salary cap. If you chose to make a “fair system” make it fair.

 

[Legion34]

The league is "artificially capping income" as part of a collectively bargained deal between the league and the players. The league isn't setting tax policy on top of it. If you're going to attribute outside factors as items that need to be considered in the calculation of the cap and say well, state income tax is a really big driver I'd argue "cost of living" is a much bigger driver - and yet, you're not even attempting to account for that at all.


You're confusing correlation with causation.

* Was Nashville able to load up on guys because players thought wow, Nashville is a no-tax state, let's go play for the Predators? If so, why hasn't Nashville been able to keep that up?
* Tampa drafted Stamkos, Vasilevskiy and Kucherov and traded for Sergachev, McDonagh and a few others well before they could choose to play for Tampa on their own. What players signed as free agents because Florida is a no-income-tax state that pushed the Lightning to a Cup more than those guys?
* Dallas has been there once. Did half the Stars team jump to go sign for a Texas-based squad because Texas has no income tax? Why haven't the Stars been back to a Cup? How have they only been to one WCF since, and how was that 2020 Finals appearance their first trip to a WCF in 12 years despite this significant "no income tax" advantage that existed the entire time?
* Florida has been there once. As an 8-seed. How did Florida's income tax status help the Panthers win playoff rounds over higher-seeded teams?

Even if I concede Vegas [which started more or less because Gerard Gallant molded a bunch of castoffs into a Cup-contending squad], you're attributing a hell of a lot of Finals appearances to nothing more than they had no income taxes which is a gross distortion of how those teams really got there.


In the last few years? Yeah, it was Boston and St. Louis. Before that? It was 9 years without any team from a tax-free state. Hell, a few of those (Los Angeles vs. New Jersey, Chicago vs. Boston, Los Angeles vs. NY Rangers) were matchups of pretty high-tax states. How did those teams manage to overcome that hindrance? How did all these no-tax franchises - something the players presumably knew about ~20 years ago - never compete for a title despite that long-built-in advantage?

It's almost like there's something more important than it's a no-income-tax state that drives winning. Maybe it's ... drafting and ... player development and ...... nah, that's crazy talk, that stuff would never play a big role. Gotta be lack of state income taxes doing all the work.


How is it that Kansas City has 3 Super Bowl titles in a state with a 4.95% income tax at the top end? How did New England win 6 Super Bowl titles with a 5% income tax? How have Miami, Jacksonville, Dallas, Houston and Tennessee combined for 0 Super Bowl titles, 0 Super Bowl appearances and 2 championship games [1 for Tennessee, 1 for Jacksonville] in the last 20 years? How does San Francisco have 7 conference championship appearances since 2011 while Seattle only has 2 [none since 2014], which is as many as the NY Giants and LA Rams each have fewer than Green Bay (4) has?

There was a run from 2003-2014 when 13 of the 24 NBA finalists were from "no income tax states," including 4 Finals between teams from "no income tax" states. 8 of the 11 champions coming from a "no income tax" state ... and then no team from a "no income tax" state made it to the Finals until Miami did it in 2020 (and lost) and then did it again in 2023 (and lost again). Was that 11-year run because of the "no state income tax" advantage? If so, why has only Miami been able to get to the Finals while other teams from "no income tax" keep falling [way] short? And how has Golden State - from a state that is very not low-tax - won 4 titles and make 6 apperances in the Finals since 2015, while the Los Angeles Lakers [same state] and Toronto Raptors [really high tax, from what I've been told in this thread] also tacked on a title?

Seriously: what makes the NHL so special that it's the only sport that has a salary cap and "no income tax" franchises are raking in the spoils left and right, but it doesn't happen in either of the other two major leagues that also have a salary cap and players also presumably can choose where to play and take advantage of income taxes which, I've been told repeatedly, should give all those franchises a huge competitive advantage that doesn't show up in the year-end results?



Life isn't fair.


1. Almost like being able to spend a shitload of money doesn't .... guarantee ....... nah, that can't be right either.
2. "Since expansion" is a really vague term - which, since you didn't define it, I will: since the Next Six in 1967.
3. "New York" could be "Rangers" or "Islanders" - and you didn't specify. The Rangers do only have 1 Cup "since expansion." The Islanders [also from New York] have 4.
4. Montreal, which is in the same relative tax bracket as Toronto and "New York," has 10 Cups "since expansion." Even if you want to throw out 1968 and 1969, that's still 8 Cups, and I'm pretty sure Montreal has the financial capacity to spend with Toronto and "New York" if it so chooses.
5. Detroit and Colorado were able to (and did) spend a f***ing shitload of money in the pre-cap era. The Red Wings won 3 Cups, the Avalanche won 2. Clearly there was an advantage to their salary structure - and, most importantly, they wielded it efficiently.

The point here: your remark is meaningless and lacks all kinds of context.


The question isn't whether we can do it. The question is whether teams should be accountable for things they have no control over.

* You say yes. I ask why stop at one thing.
* You talk about fairness. I ask why stop at the ilusion of fairness without accounting for everything that makes things unfair.
* You say "there are calculators on line to figure it out now." All the more reason we should account for everything that potentially distorts fairness, because if we're doing this I don't want to hear bitching in 3-5 years about how things are still unfair and we need to make more changes more fair - especially if it's so easy to do because "there are calculators on line to figure it out now."


This presumes a "clear structural advantage" exists in the first place. Simply claiming it exists doesn't make it so; I pointed out how it clearly doesn't exist in other sports with a cap (and I'd make a similar argument for MLB, where the Astros won more because they intentionally shit the bed for years to load up on top prospects to go win a title and teams in clearly high-tax areas are winning titles / other teams in no-tax areas are not routinely competitive and certainly not attracting top players every year and staying at the top of the standings), others have pointed out that the taxes levied by states around the country severely diminish any tax advantages that purportedly exist.

As always, YMMV.

1.) this is about the NHL. This system is completely different in terms of Canadian teams days over the border triple hard caps etc. comparing to other sports is completely useless and does not recognize reality.

2.) you are the one arguing that the structural advantage doesn’t exist because it doesn’t lead to real world results.

Except. It does. The lowest tax teams are way over represented in cups. Finals division wins etc.
you said it.

3.) the reason that it didn’t happen before is because big market high tax teams were able to make back diving contracts to even out the tax advantage. Once the Hossa, Z, Datsuk type deals petered out you can clearly see the no state tax teams take over

4.) and what you want to hear is not relevant to reality.

5.) tax advantages in the NHL clearly exist according to agents player gms and the clear demarcation of salaries between no state tax teams and high state tax teams

 

[JianYang]

This is entirely backwards. If you were going to accept each markets strengths you could easily allow teams to “buy cap” or allot different caps to different teams based on market size/revenue any million ways.

The whole point is that they chose to artificially cap/restrict salaries and NHL players agents GMs and media have all came out and said it is leading to advantages. And those advantages have been reflected in playoffs/success and millions in revenue.

The NHL is not required to make a weather cap,endorsement cap, schools cap.
Every market has strengths. The NHL does not need to equalize those.

They chose to artificially create parity in the salary cap. If you chose to make a “fair system” make it fair.

Actually, the league's motto during the year long lockout was "cost certainty", and their mechanism to achieve that was through the salary cap and escrow.

There are inherent factors that will never make all markets equal. Post lockout, the cup has been won by high cost of living markets and low cost of living markets. Heck, there are 5 cups between the Hawks and kings alone since the lockout. However. The one commonality between virtually cup winners is that their foundational pieces were homegrown talents through the draft.

 

[Legionnaire11]

And people wonder why guys don't want to play in Canada lol.

Like John Tavares who famously chose to play in Canada?

 

[JohnBlutarski]

Like John Tavares who famously chose to play in Canada?

Exactly... and look how his own country is doing to him.
This is why most of the guys in the league with NMC's usually have Canadian teams on their no trade lists. Now they can point exactly to this situation when declining to go to Canada.

 

[eojsmada]

Exactly... and look how his own country is doing to him.
This is why most of the guys in the league with NMC's usually have Canadian teams on their no trade lists. Now they can point exactly to this situation when declining to go to Canada.

Sadly, Tavares is just reinforcing the idea that every athlete needs to have a financial advisor who is fluent in both Canadian and US Taxes. OR...at least the NHLPA should have one available for its members (gasp...an actual productive use of dues). The problem that existed, that no financial advisor would have ever allowed, is that Tavares' signing bonus should have had 50% of it withheld to account for taxes and then you get the rest of it as a nice bonus when you file your paperwork or you can at least credit it towards your tax liability when you do your taxes later on. No financial advisor worth their salt would ever advise taking the signing bonus and dumping 100% of it into your bank account to sit and wait until you go to pay your taxes. You're asking for trouble. And especially in Tavares' case since he's changing his country of residence. The U.S. will say that they are entitled to the tax liability on that, because you "invested" it in their country before taking it across the border. And Canada will say that they are the ones who should get the tax revenue from it, since it's a Canadian company paying a Canadian citizen/employee.

But hopefully Tavares' lack of financial acumen will help benefit future players as to what NOT to do with your money. This isn't a "Canada bad" thing...it's just what happens when players either get bad advice or handle their money in a way that flags themselves for an audit.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

1.) this is about the NHL.

And really, that's the crux of it all - and it undermines everything else you go on to complain about because everything that doesn't fit your desired narrative gets ignored. Because were your claims true, we should see this going on in every other major pro sports league.

And the reality is, we don't - because lack of income taxes isn't driving competitiveness of franchises and dictating winning championships. There's a whole myriad of other factors that are far more important, and have been true across decades of play, and will continue to be true across decades more of play - and taxes won't even be ripples in a toilet bowl comparatively.

2.) you are the one arguing that the structural advantage doesn’t exist because it doesn’t lead to real world results.

Except. It does.

Except ... it doesn't, as I pointed out. And, you intentionally want to ignore it because it doesn't fit your desired narrative.

3.) the reason that it didn’t happen before is because big market high tax teams were able to make back diving contracts to even out the tax advantage.

Front-loaded Back diving contracts shouldn't matter. Even now, one can structure a front-loaded back-diving contract for tax advantages; the higher-dollar years are in a "no income tax" location, and then if the player gets traded the lower-dollar years result in less tax paid.

Hell, high-revenue teams (and do) can leverage signing bonuses to get more cash into the hands of players sooner, which gives them a significant advantage over low-revenue teams, and players choose to take advantage of that regardless of the tax status of the location the team is in. Were your complaint to be true, a disproportionate amount of signing bonuses would be found on teams in "no income tax" states; that's .... just not the case, though.

4.) and what you want to hear is not relevant to reality.

Clearly. I've noticed over the last few posts. It might help to read what you're being told, instead of admitting you're ignoring everything that runs contrary to what you desperately want to believe is true.

5.) tax advantages in the NHL clearly exist according to agents player gms and the clear demarcation of salaries between no state tax teams and high state tax teams

Tax advantages then presumably also exist in all the other sports where there's "no state tax" teams and "high state tax" teams and yet the "high state tax" teams seem to still do awfully well when ......... oh, yeah, right, we ignore that stuff because it doesn't fit the desired narrative. We especially ignore that NBA example because that really undermines the "no income tax teams have shitloads of advantages and win all the hardware" complaint.

If you want to keep complaining - and it appears that you do - I say complain away. Nothing is going to change - and by that, I mean "the salary cap in the NHL or any other major sport is never getting adjusted by team for whatever factors" - but if you want to waste time and energy on it, I'm not about to stop you. But I do look forward to when (not if) a team from a "high income tax" area wins a Cup, and then so does another, and then another, and the "no income tax" teams suddenly don't win stuff, and how it's somehow some "exception that proves the rule" situation and serves as more "proof" that "something" needs to be done with taxes and the salary cap to promote "financial competitive fairness."

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Exactly... and look how his own country is doing to him.
This is why most of the guys in the league with NMC's usually have Canadian teams on their no trade lists.

Most of the guys in the league with NTCs pre-whenever had Canadian teams on their lists. That was still true when the 2005 CBA dictated that all new contracts paid in $US so that players didn't get hit with an exchange rate problem, which should have taken that excuse away.

Almost like there's something else causing players to not want to play for Canadian-based teams. Well, maybe someone will come up with a reason why that might be.

 

[Legion34]

Sadly, Tavares is just reinforcing the idea that every athlete needs to have a financial advisor who is fluent in both Canadian and US Taxes. OR...at least the NHLPA should have one available for its members (gasp...an actual productive use of dues). The problem that existed, that no financial advisor would have ever allowed, is that Tavares' signing bonus should have had 50% of it withheld to account for taxes and then you get the rest of it as a nice bonus when you file your paperwork or you can at least credit it towards your tax liability when you do your taxes later on. No financial advisor worth their salt would ever advise taking the signing bonus and dumping 100% of it into your bank account to sit and wait until you go to pay your taxes. You're asking for trouble. And especially in Tavares' case since he's changing his country of residence. The U.S. will say that they are entitled to the tax liability on that, because you "invested" it in their country before taking it across the border. And Canada will say that they are the ones who should get the tax revenue from it, since it's a Canadian company paying a Canadian citizen/employee.

But hopefully Tavares' lack of financial acumen will help benefit future players as to what NOT to do with your money. This isn't a "Canada bad" thing...it's just what happens when players either get bad advice or handle their money in a way that flags themselves for an audit.

Tavares is represented by kpmg. One of the biggest firms in Canada.

 

[Legion34]

And really, that's the crux of it all - and it undermines everything else you go on to complain about because everything that doesn't fit your desired narrative gets ignored. Because were your claims true, we should see this going on in every other major pro sports league.

And the reality is, we don't - because lack of income taxes isn't driving competitiveness of franchises and dictating winning championships. There's a whole myriad of other factors that are far more important, and have been true across decades of play, and will continue to be true across decades more of play - and taxes won't even be ripples in a toilet bowl comparatively.


Except ... it doesn't, as I pointed out. And, you intentionally want to ignore it because it doesn't fit your desired narrative.

Front-loaded Back diving contracts shouldn't matter. Even now, one can structure a front-loaded back-diving contract for tax advantages; the higher-dollar years are in a "no income tax" location, and then if the player gets traded the lower-dollar years result in less tax paid.

Hell, high-revenue teams (and do) can leverage signing bonuses to get more cash into the hands of players sooner, which gives them a significant advantage over low-revenue teams, and players choose to take advantage of that regardless of the tax status of the location the team is in. Were your complaint to be true, a disproportionate amount of signing bonuses would be found on teams in "no income tax" states; that's .... just not the case, though.


Clearly. I've noticed over the last few posts. It might help to read what you're being told, instead of admitting you're ignoring everything that runs contrary to what you desperately want to believe is true.


Tax advantages then presumably also exist in all the other sports where there's "no state tax" teams and "high state tax" teams and yet the "high state tax" teams seem to still do awfully well when ......... oh, yeah, right, we ignore that stuff because it doesn't fit the desired narrative. We especially ignore that NBA example because that really undermines the "no income tax teams have shitloads of advantages and win all the hardware" complaint.

If you want to keep complaining - and it appears that you do - I say complain away. Nothing is going to change - and by that, I mean "the salary cap in the NHL or any other major sport is never getting adjusted by team for whatever factors" - but if you want to waste time and energy on it, I'm not about to stop you. But I do look forward to when (not if) a team from a "high income tax" area wins a Cup, and then so does another, and then another, and the "no income tax" teams suddenly don't win stuff, and how it's somehow some "exception that proves the rule" situation and serves as more "proof" that "something" needs to be done with taxes and the salary cap to promote "financial competitive fairness."

Sweet Jesus. The reason we don’t see this in every other sports league is they don’t have 7 Canadian teams, and many players who live here in the offseason.

You can’t be serious. Players in Canada play like 55 of 82 games here. A lot live here.
That is a fundamentally different thing than any other league. The whole argument here is Tavares being taxed in Canada. He clearly said his SB being taxed in the us was a big factor.

You have to purposely be ignoring reality of 7 Canadian teams and Canadian players. The raptors can play 41 games in Canada. 41 across various states and live in the us in the off season

It’s totally different playing 55 games in Canada and living here.

2.) again the whole point of the back diving contracts is they weren’t played out. Teams would get passed the salary cap by signing guys to 45. They were outlawed.

3.) no one is saying it is the only factor. Drafting developing. Media. Weather schools etc all matter. But the NHl didn’t make a cap on those. That’s why it matters.

 

[eojsmada]

Tavares is represented by kpmg. One of the biggest firms in Canada.

And? Big firms don't always mean competent. He still got bad advice. And if his advisor was worth their salt, Canada Revenue would have never even thought to audit him, because his handling would have been beyond reproach, let alone have it drag out in court.

To be fair...it was probably an honest mistake that happened between his Agent, himself, and his financial advisor. And more than likely there were details that probably didn't seem important when they were doing the contract details, but ended up being problematic. And no financial advisor can repair a decision that was made in haste and done incorrectly. It happens.

 

[Legion34]

And? Big firms don't always mean competent. He still got bad advice. And if his advisor was worth their salt, Canada Revenue would have never even thought to audit him, because his handling would have been beyond reproach, let alone have it drag out in court.

To be fair...it was probably an honest mistake that happened between his Agent, himself, and his financial advisor. And more than likely there were details that probably didn't seem important when they were doing the contract details, but ended up being problematic. And no financial advisor can repair a decision that was made in haste and done incorrectly. It happens.

The idea that it is easy and “any financial advisor” could avoid tax differences is silly.

Tavares is repped by a massive agency that deals with NHL contracts all the time. There was an article specifically on Tavares and how he could avoid Canadian taxes in his first year that was published and shared on here.

Maybe the government wants its money and is trying to close/reinterpret “loopholes”.

It just happened to Bautista too. I guess his financial advisor is dumb

 

[Golden_Jet]

The idea that it is easy and “any financial advisor” could avoid tax differences is silly.

Tavares is repped by a massive agency that deals with NHL contracts all the time. There was an article specifically on Tavares and how he could avoid Canadian taxes in his first year that was published and shared on here.

Maybe the government wants its money and is trying to close/reinterpret “loopholes”.

It just happened to Bautista too. I guess his financial advisor is dumb

Tavares screwed up, he spent too many days in Canada, if he spent less than half, he’d be ok, but he moved back in April.

He has an easy solution, he moves some money to an RCA for that year.

Also, why do you keep ignoring correct responses in here, and then posting wrong ones lol.

 

[Legion34]

Tavares screwed up, he spent too many days in Canada, if he spent less than half, he’d be ok, but he moved back in April.

He has an easy solution, he moves some money to an RCA for that year.

Also, why do you keep ignoring correct responses in here, and then posting wrong ones lol.

1.) according to him he did not spend too many days in Canada. He said it was way under
2.) it’s NOT about number of days that is just one component. It’s about greater financial ties. Earning money property etc.
3.) you don’t know he “moved back” in April.
4.) RCAs are a joke. I have this. It’s just a rrsp. The only way that would work is if he put all of his money in rcas. Moved to Florida when he retired.

If you put all your money into rrsps and take it out you get taxed.

This is terrible financial advice.

 

[Golden_Jet]

1.) according to him he did not spend too many days in Canada. He said it was way under
2.) it’s NOT about number of days that is just one component. It’s about greater financial ties. Earning money property etc.
3.) you don’t know he “moved back” in April.
4.) RCAs are a joke. I have this. It’s just a rrsp. The only way that would work is if he put all of his money in rcas. Moved to Florida when he retired.

If you put all your money into rrsps and take it out you get taxed.

This is terrible financial advice.

Over a 100 million in career earnings, I’m sure he can sop away 6-7 million into an RCA for one year.

He did move back then, like he did at the end of each season.