So now Richard Murphy et al are claiming that Usain Bolt’s refusal to compete in the UK under current tax laws is “tax avoidance”. Oh please!
As I understand it, the world’s fastest man feels that he would rather not pay any UK tax on his sponsorship/endorsement income – and I understand that he’s not alone, others are also reluctant to perform in the UK for the same reason. So, he has decided that the simplest thing is not to perform in the UK. By not performing in the UK, there is no liability to UK tax.
So how, exactly, does that make him a “tax avoider”?
That’s a little bit like saying that by choosing not to go and work in (say) France, I am “avoiding” French tax. Which is, of course, absurd.
If Usain Bolt – or anyone else – chooses not to perform in the UK, that is his right. It may well be short sighted (I’m not saying it is, just that it may be) but it certainly isn’t “tax avoidance”.