Court of Appeal to deliver judgment on cricketers’ tax dispute on March 31
The long-running legal dispute between Sri Lanka’s national cricketers and the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) reached a decisive point this week, with the Court of Appeal concluding hearings and fixing March 31 for the delivery of its judgment. The ruling is expected to determine whether professional cricketers should be classified as employees or as independent service providers under Sri Lankan tax law.
The case arises from the IRD’s decision to retrospectively treat national cricketers as employees of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) and to impose Advance Personal Income Tax from January 2023. The petitioners argue that the reclassification was sudden, unlawful and imposed without due process.
Appearing for the male cricketers, including captains Charith Asalanka and Dhananjaya de Silva, Attorney-at-Law Nishan Sydney Premathiratne criticised the IRD’s stance, submitting that SLC functions only as a collecting agent. He argued that retrospective taxation unfairly burdens both players and SLC, noting that both parties have consistently regarded their relationship as one of independent service provision.
Premathiratne told court that the IRD cannot selectively label cricketers as employees purely for tax purposes while denying them recognised labour benefits such as EPF, ETF or gratuity. He also highlighted that players personally bear substantial professional costs, including equipment, trainers, masseuses and travel, which he said are hallmarks of independent contractors.
A central argument concerned double taxation. Counsel pointed out that many players had already paid income tax through self-declaration for the 2022–23 and 2023–24 periods, and that imposing APIT for the same period would amount to taxing the same income twice.
SLC supported the players’ position. President’s Counsel Kuvera de Zoysa warned that an adverse ruling could have serious consequences for the administration of the sport. He cautioned that if players are deemed employees, they could seek protection under labour laws, limiting SLC’s ability to manage contracts based on performance and potentially opening the door to industrial action.
The IRD, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe, maintained that the level of control exercised by SLC over players satisfies the legal test for employment. The case was heard before President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya PC and Justice K. Priyantha Fernando.