Was reading a thread about this article on the BBC board, but I couldn't reply, as the board is closed now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4990126.stm

I think the issue Agassi has is just as some people pointed out on the thread. As a US citizen, he is taxed already on the full amount of his endorsements here in the US. The UK was then also taxing him on some portion of the endorsements that they calculate through some formula as being earned in the UK, due to his participation in tournaments there. I can understand the UK wanting to grab a piece of his endorsement pie, but it does seem a bit unfair to be doubly taxed like that. I think, with the US law, you can get credit for taxes paid to another country on foreign income, but I don't think this would qualify. I don't think the US would count any portion of the endorsement of a US athlete by a US company as foreign income. Prize money earned at Wimbledon or other tourneys outside the US probably would be treated as foreign income.

Is it fair that every country that a player goes to for a tournament should take a piece of his/her endorsement money? I think that was the principle of it; not whether or not he could afford the amount in question. But if every country were to follow suit, that would get expensive (and complicated) for an internationally touring athlete.

Actually, it could qualify. As long as the income is taxable and paid in the foreign country and is also taxable in the US (and a handfull of other restrictions - like oil/gas, sanctioned nations, etc...), you can take the credit or deduction.

Well I think part of it might be the fact that this country is much more tax dependent than others, hence our NHs, welfare state, free education etc. and beign so welcoming of immigrants. We gotta pay somehow! If th eLaw Lords had backed down, we have had to have padi out millions going back to 1988.

Does the formula used nto adjust for the fact that he was taxed in the US already? I dont know, just wondered.