Is the Jamaican - he avoided running in the UK for three years until the Olympics - right to challenge HMRC?
Taxman races BoltHMRC claims that Jamaican Bolt (and others foreign athletes like him) should not just be taxed on their winnings but also on a proportion of their sponsorship earnings - their wider earnings, in other words. Especially in the current climate and with a shrinking UK tax base generally.
But the Olympics was a tax-free event for the triple gold medalist (and others) as the Government switched the tax rules - with some pressure from the International Olympic Committee - to create some concessions. (There were other concessions too for the Champions League Final at Wembley.)
£9bn space to performBritish taxpayers, on the other hand, did not complain much about coughing up the £9bn to give Bolt the space to perform at the Olympics. And without that space, little opportunity to showcase sponsorship. Bolt, remember, is not just an athlete: running is what the 25-year-old does for a job (and is very well paid for being the best in world at it).
Bolt has previously spurned UK sporting events because of the personal tax impact. In 2010 he turned down the chance of a UK three-way fight between himself, Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay. According to Celebrity Networth, the athlete's net worth rings in at $30m.
Nadal supportBolt has supporters on the tax issue. Spanish-born Rafa Nadal has also complained of the UK tax system (though Spain could equally do with tax revenues currently).
Should HMRC be more accommodating to big-name athletes? Or do you agree with their approach? Let us know in the comments.