Full MLE is often called "Non-Taxpayer" but you can still pay tax?

[meekrab]

So the Bulls are in the interesting situation this offseason that if they sign Zach LaVine to a maximum deal, jettison all their other cap holds, and sign #18 to 120% of the rookie scale, they can still use the full "Non-Taxpayer" Mid-level exception while staying under the Luxury Tax Apron... but above the Luxury tax line.

Was this always the case, or was there once a time when the Hard Cap for the full MLE (and presumably after S+T transactions?) was at the tax line, thus giving a valid rise to the name "Non-Taxpayer MLE"?

[giberish]

I refer to the two MLE's as the 'full' or 'hard-capped' MLE for the larger one and the 'small' or 'no hard cap' MLE for the smaller one.

I never refer to 'tax' as which MLE you can use is not related to the tax (or paying the tax in previous years as many used to mistakenly believe). The only difference is that using the larger one (or anything above the smaller one) invokes the hard cap for the rest of the league year.

If this naming convention were standard there'd be a lot less confusion.

[meekrab]

I never refer to 'tax' as which MLE you can use is not related to the tax (or paying the tax in previous years as many used to mistakenly believe). The only difference is that using the larger one (or anything above the smaller one) invokes the hard cap for the rest of the league year.

So I guess my question is, was the hard cap formerly right at the luxury tax line? Even the unofficial CBA FAQ calls it the "Non-Taxpayer" mid level exception, e.g. in question 25. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25

[giberish]

I never refer to 'tax' as which MLE you can use is not related to the tax (or paying the tax in previous years as many used to mistakenly believe). The only difference is that using the larger one (or anything above the smaller one) invokes the hard cap for the rest of the league year.

So I guess my question is, was the hard cap formerly right at the luxury tax line? Even the unofficial CBA FAQ calls it the "Non-Taxpayer" mid level exception, e.g. in question 25. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25

No, since it's current introduction it's always been at the 'apron' which has been above the luxury tax line. Which is why referencing the tax in naming the MLE's is IMO just plain wrong and stupid (for a small detail this really bugs me). I do believe that the amount that the apron/hard cap is above the tax line has changed a bit (used to be more like $4M now it's higher).

[meekrab]

I never refer to 'tax' as which MLE you can use is not related to the tax (or paying the tax in previous years as many used to mistakenly believe). The only difference is that using the larger one (or anything above the smaller one) invokes the hard cap for the rest of the league year.

So I guess my question is, was the hard cap formerly right at the luxury tax line? Even the unofficial CBA FAQ calls it the "Non-Taxpayer" mid level exception, e.g. in question 25. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25

No, since it's current introduction it's always been at the 'apron' which has been above the luxury tax line. Which is why referencing the tax in naming the MLE's is IMO just plain wrong and stupid (for a small detail this really bugs me). I do believe that the amount that the apron/hard cap is above the tax line has changed a bit (used to be more like $4M now it's higher).

That's what I thought, thanks.