Skip to Main Content
 

Professional Golfer Sergio Garcia to Owe More Taxes on Endorsement Income

March 15, 2013

On March 14, 2013, the United States Tax Court ruled that professional golfer Sergio Garcia will owe additional tax to the Internal Revenue Service by changing Mr. Garcia's allocation of income from an endorsement contract with TaylorMade Golf.  This is the second significant case to be decided as part of a recent IRS attack on professional athletes' characterization of the nature of endorsement income, following a similar case in 2011 involving professional golfer Retief Goosen.  Both cases concern non-US athletes and the extent to which endorsement income relates to personal services of the athletes as opposed to royalties for the use of the athletes' names, likeness and reputation.  The different characterization of the income can result in different withholding tax consequences to the athletes and can lead to an expensive surprise from the IRS.

Summary

The Tax Court addressed the on-course and off-course income that Garcia, a Swiss resident, received for his "head to toe" endorsement contract with TaylorMade, a golf equipment and apparel maker.  The contract allocated 85% of Garcia's fees as royalties to be paid to a Swiss entity not subject to US tax.  The remaining 15% was allocated as payments for services, which was to be paid directly to Garcia and which Garcia treated as fully taxable in the United States.  The Tax Court reduced to 65% the allocation of fees as royalties, and increased to 35% the allocation of fees for services.  Additionally, the Tax Court held that the US-Swiss tax treaty exempts Garcia's royalty income from US taxation, even if part of such royalties related to US activities.  As a result, Garcia will owe additional tax on the income that was reallocated as income from services.

Allocation of Endorsement Fees

There is no prescribed method for allocation of endorsement fees.  In the Garcia case the Tax Court relied on both the particular requirements of the TaylorMade contract and the recent Tax Court precedent concerning the Retief Goosen endorsement contract which was also with TaylorMade.  The Tax Court noted that the allocation provided for in the contract was not negotiated at arms-length, and indicated that Garcia had not provided sufficient evidence to support an affirmation of the contractual allocation.

International Tax Treaties

There is significant variation in how income may be treated for residents of different countries with which the US has entered into tax treaties depending on the substance of the treaties, or for which there is no applicable tax treaty at all.  In the Garcia case, the US-Swiss tax treaty protects Swiss residents from all US tax on royalties.  But the US does not maintain tax treaties with all countries, and where no treaty controls, a 30 percent withholding tax may otherwise apply on royalty payments. 

Conclusion

Professional athletes, including those who are not US residents, can easily get tangled in a web of complex and very technical tax laws.  Garcia's case, and Retief Goosen's case before it, show that endorsement contracts often involve US tax issues that are hidden to the athlete when the contract is agreed to, but that the IRS will pursue vigorously later on.  This can result in an unexpected tax bill that could potentially be avoided with proper tax planning.  Caplin & Drysdale has provided guidance to professional athletes on these issues in the past, and recommends that athletes and their advisors review endorsement contracts to consider whether appropriate changes should be made to the allocation of their endorsement income to reflect the best tax position for their circumstances.

For more information, please contact:

Mark D. Allison
mallison@capdale.com
212.379.6060

Michael G. Pfeifer
mpfeifer@capdale.com
202.862.5085

H. David Rosenbloom
drosenbloom@capdale.com
202.862.5037

________________________________________________

About Caplin & Drysdale
Having celebrated our 50th Anniversary in 2014, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of tax, tax controversy, and litigation legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills - combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment - make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:

-Bankruptcy
-Business, Investment & Transactional Tax
-Complex Litigation
-Corporate Law
-Employee Benefits
-Exempt Organizations
-International Tax
-Political Law
-Private Client
-Tax Controversies
-Tax Litigation
-White Collar Defense

For more information, please visit us at www.caplindrysdale.com.

Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
202.862.5000
        New York, NY Office:
600 Lexington Avenue
21st Floor 
New York, NY 10022
212.379.6000

___________________________

Disclaimer
This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.

© 2017 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.