Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 Sep 12
17:48
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Jul 02
it just strikes me if your tax authorities go on with their case against the likes of David Walsh and Zeljko et al, they are opening themselves to a tsunami of claims from losing punters who, while losing, conduct themselves in a professional manner.
These losses can then surely be claimed against their other incomes, ie if I am a journalist, a publican, a lawyer or whatever and pay income tax in that capacity, my losses on betting, providing I have conducted my studies in that all-important "professional" manner, can be claimed against my other income thus reducing or perhaps even negating my tax bill.
Any thoughts, especially as in Australia, more than anywhere else, there are surely more people who do take their punting very seriously.
These losses can then surely be claimed against their other incomes, ie if I am a journalist, a publican, a lawyer or whatever and pay income tax in that capacity, my losses on betting, providing I have conducted my studies in that all-important "professional" manner, can be claimed against my other income thus reducing or perhaps even negating my tax bill.
Any thoughts, especially as in Australia, more than anywhere else, there are surely more people who do take their punting very seriously.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 84
|
By:
It's already been tried and failed
|
|
By:
For those of you afraid that the tax man will be knocking on you door to claim his share of your punting profits.....he won't.
They are only after these guys because of the scale of the operation. In order to be taxable all elements of a business have to be proven....staff, offices, systems and operations. In a previous case a factory owner tried to offset his losses from gambling aginst his factory income...he failed. The Taxman will be at pains to prove the intricate and elaborate business elements of the Z case. They don't want people to be able to claim losses. It's the mammoth scale of the operation that has these blokes in trouble. So if you're worried...don't. |
|
By:
And if you're still worried...
A very close relative of mine is a partner in one of the largest accountancy firms in Australia. I have discussed this with him prior to embarking on a punting career and he has confirmed what i wrote below. |
|
By:
I know from a personal experience with the ATO, that what you say is correct, whoopi.
|
|
By:
Hooray for ATO Ruling IT2655!!
|
|
By:
but the rules of the game may change because the test in law is just whether you conduct yourself in a professional manner and now the tax authorities are pursuing profit makers i think the courts will look on things differently, before there was an uneasy status quo and that is why loss makers were refused because profit makers were not being subjected to tax other than everyday betting tax
ie i don't agree with the above because i think the whole rules of the game change with this latest development the status quo is no more and it may come back to bite the tax authorities on their smelly bottoms - this is the very reason the UK tax authorities do not pursue winning punters |
|
By:
So if I read this correctly, I am legally entitled to make my living from punting and not pay any income tax so long as I can hide enough elements of what I do and make it not look professional???
|
|
By:
snake you don't have to hide anything.
You can be loud and proud. Read what i wrote earlier. |
|
By:
I have been hiding in the shadows for years for nothing. I certainly won't be jumping up and down advertising, but this gives me significant comfort
 |
|
By:
all you had to do was ask
 |
|
By:
If I'd asked I would have blown the secret I didn't need to keep...
|
|
By:
Z and Walsh's situation is not like any retail punter
The whole basis of gambling winnings not being taxable is most people lose and this is true if you bet with TAB or bookie with no rebates. The situation changes completely once big rebates are paid out. Z and Walsh are very likely to win once getting big rebates betting into TAB pools, it is almost a licence to print money You only have to look at the profit results of the Tassie Tote. Tassie Tote was making almost no profit on a billion dollars turnover. This is because the all the profits were being handed over to those getting big rebates. If no rebates are paid out then Tassie Tote makes a decent profit and pays taxes to the government. There was no way the government/ATO was going to stand by while a tote reduced its profits to almost zero and all the rebate punters milked tens of millions of dollars "tax free" When Tatts bought out Tassie Tote they distinguished between the retail portion of the business and the wholesale portion of the business (ie the rebate portion). This is the correct way to look at things and the rebate punters should not be treated the same way as the non rebate players if you go back to first principles |
|
By:
If you directly employ people to do video form, build models, write code etc are you then seen as taxable?
|
|
By:
If you employ them to build models and write code you can simply claim that they never completed the work for which you spent many thousands of dollars. Then if they want to tax you you could simply use those bills as a write off against any and all income. Since they won't let you claim those expenses they cannot tax you on the income.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
By:
the legitimacy of taxing the Bankroll's racing profits is not what I mean to discuss, what I'm saying is that by doing so the status quo is necessarily changed and anyone who can show they conducted their punting "in a professional manner" and lost, should claim those losses against other income sources
hopefully the Aussie tax will be deluged with legitimate claims |
|
By:
Q. How many punting losses will now be claimed against tax?
A. Whoever the ATO decides to tax that has a loss, which will be no one. |
|
By:
I gamble in my underpants , I hope thats an 'unprofessional manner'
 |
|
By:
Only if the elastic is gone in them Mr Joel
|
|
By:
Minors cannot be professionals when adorned in soiled underwear (clause 221(d)). And let's face it, you're a teenager. Ergo, they're soiled.
|
|
By:
It sure is, and there's plenty oh holes in them.
Oh and they are bone coloured. |
|
By:
I bet they weren't bone coloured when you bought them
 |
|
By:
Well I do like to put soil in them, you should try it sometime
|
|
By:
Will do, Mr Crunchy Pants
 |
|
By:
whoopi I agree, these guys where not making money from mere punting, he was playing the numbers and luck really wasn't involved at all, he was getting refunds therefore no matter what happened he would win a profit
|
|
By:
One thing i have learnt.
How many Self employed people make 10-20k a year but have the Best of everything. Then they winge and Blame Banks because Banks wont lend them money because they make only 10-20k a year. When Told your repayments Min for 1 year Just Interest is 30k and the last 2 years you have only earn t 10-20k and The amount you make wont Service Interest the Loan. They need a special Loan a Lyer Loan. These are the People that need to be looked into. People on a Wage the only people that pay Tax right and have the least amount of money. |
|
By:
Seems as though most people have missed your point Happy Valley. The tax office is pretty clear that they prefer to assess each "case" individually, which they can do because they are the tax office. However if the case in question is found to be in favour of the tax office it does open the door for a person in business employing people and paying taxes to then claim part of their own business is in the pursuit of gambling winnings, then claim that it made a loss in that pursuit. The tax office would likely reject that claim and then it would be left to the claimant to pursue the case through legal channels, just as the tax office has done against ZR & DW.
As for rebates, well anyone can receive a rebate with the right turnover. King Mug made a good point in regards to the tax office's attitude and motivation in the ZR/DW case, regarding rebates. |
|
By:
As Shiraz has chosen to once again muddy the waters, (really don't know why he would want to scare people unnecessarily,i guess some people get their jollies from that) here it is in black and white from ato ruling IT2655
As Hill J stated in Babka, although mere punting may constitute a business, "the intrusion of chance into the activity as a predominant ingredient" will generally preclude such a finding. That's winning or losing And the rest is below. Summary is that if chance instinct etc play a role....it's not a business. And that's even if you have all the other prerequisites of staff, offices, systems and operations. THEREFORE YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CLAIM LOSSES BECAUSE TO HAVE LOSSES THERE MUST HAVE BEEN CHANCE INVOLVED! Anyway, here it is, read for yourselves FACTS 3. In Evans, the Federal Court (Hill J) was prepared to assume that mere punting could constitute a business but decided that on the facts of that case the taxpayer was not carrying on a business. Hill J. stated that if a mere punter is to be held to be carrying on a business it will be because the relevant betting activities will be systematically conducted so as to get the most favourable odds obtainable. Volume of punting and size of bets of themselves are not, in his Honour's view, determinative of the outcome, although neither can be said to be irrelevant. Hill J said that what was lacking to characterise the taxpayer's gambling as a business was the element of system or organisation. The taxpayer did not maintain an office or employ any staff to assist him, he did not keep any records, he did not use a computer or subscribe to any tipping or information services and did not spend a lot of time studying form. In particular, his Honour said, the taxpayer's preference for betting with the TAB or on course totalizator, rather than with bookmakers, and his tendency to invest in quinellas, trifectas and other exotic kinds of bets seemed "inconsistent with the money-making, systematic, businesslike character which is an essential ingredient in the carrying on of a business". The taxpayer's winnings were therefore not assessable. 4. In Babka, the Federal Court (Hill J) again proceeded on the assumption that mere punting may constitute a business but, as in Evans, found it unnecessary to reach a final conclusion on the matter because, even if betting activities are inherently capable in some circumstances of constituting a business, the facts of the case did not reveal the taxpayer to be carrying on any business at all. His winnings were therefore not assessable. The taxpayer did not follow any betting system but he did place bets in accordance with several guiding principles. Judgment and instinct both played a part in the taxpayer's selection of horses on which to bet as well as in his choice of the amount and type of bet placed. That was sufficient to negate the concept of system and organisation which is the hallmark of a business. The taxpayer's activities "could [not] be said to exceed those of a keen follower of the turf". Hill J indicated that today mere punting, particularly with the growth of modern technology such as computers, could be so organised, systematic and businesslike and so dedicated to profit-making as to constitute a business. However, his Honour went on to say that the intrusion of chance into the activity as a predominant ingredient at least in the outcome of the race itself suggests that it will be a rare case where a court will conclude that the activity is a business. 5. The Full Federal Court (Pincus, French and Gummow JJ) in Brajkovich stated that gambling, as ordinarily conducted by members of the gambling public, would seldom be a business even where large gains or losses are involved. In that case, the element of sport, excitement and amusement was the main attraction for the taxpayer and it could not be said that a business was being carried on. The Court said that the principal criteria for determining whether gambling constitutes a business include the following : whether the gambling is conducted in a systematic, organised and businesslike way; the volume and size of the gambling; whether the gambling is related to, or part of, other activities of a businesslike character e.g., breeding horses; and whether the gambler appears to engage in his or her activity principally for profit or principally for pleasure. On the basis of those criteria, the Full Court concluded that the taxpayer's gambling did not constitute a business and therefore the gambling losses he had incurred were not deductible. The evidence showed that he had from his youth a simple passion for gambling on a large scale and "merely indulging that, without more, is not engaging in a business". The Court added that gambling which involves a significant element of skill is more likely to have tax consequences than gambling on merely random events. 6. The Commissioner accepts that it is possible for a mere punter to be carrying on a business of betting or gambling but considers that it will be rare for a taxpayer with no connection with racing other than betting to be carrying on a business of betting or gambling. 7. Ultimately each case will depend on its own facts. There is no Australian case in which the winnings of a mere punter have been held to be assessable (or the losses deductible). As Hill J stated in Babka, although mere punting may constitute a business, "the intrusion of chance into the activity as a predominant ingredient" will generally preclude such a finding. If a taxpayer is involved in other business activities in the racing industry, it will be more likely that betting activities are of a business nature. 8. The criteria summarised in Brajkovich and the factors considered in Evans and Babka should be taken into account in determining whether a taxpayer is carrying on a business of betting or gambling. |
|
By:
I should add of course that those connected with the racing industry are in a different boat.
I guess even the Tax Commissioner thinks races are ****. |
|
By:
*r i g g e d
|
|
By:
I'm no expert on the methodology of Z, but from what I've read he has all the prerequisites of a busines..staff, systems etc.
He also has the added ingredient of the removal of chance from the equation via the rebates (i'm guessing that's what the Tax office will argue). The scale of his operation, plus the rebates, make his case unique, and will have no impact on future rulings. |
|
By:
whoopi thank you very much for posting that case and for sure the rebates issue is a fundamental one
the current Z/DW case though could still change the status quo as their rebates were a fairly recent introduction and I believe only became central to profit as the markets became smarter and smarter and profit on turnover declined, and what's more the rebates were far more important in one or two jurisdictions, ie Tasmania and America. it is going to be very difficult to unravel the rebates - for the tax man that is and also by focusing on this element of chance i believe is mistaken by the authorities and will be superseded as chance or luck can be discounted from a "professional" model if the number of events are large enough |
|
By:
so it is still quite possible the current case changes the status quo and the tax authorities suffer the law of unforeseen consequences, ie are deluged by rebate claims which, eventually, they have to grant
|
|
By:
No one, who is not already paying tax as a professional gambler, will be getting tax rebate. End of story.
|
|
By:
Absurd thread.
Nice work whoopi but really you didn't need to bother. |
|
By:
Yeah I know kamo, but like you I'm a humanitarian, and the thought of blokes laying awake at night waiting for the tax man to knock on their door forced me to take action.
|
|
By:
That'd be like laying awake at night worrying if Heidi Klum is gonna knock on your door!!!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
if it is absurd Kami, why post?
better to take your smugness elsewhere. |
|
By:
Cut to the chase, Happy!!!
What does ALL BLACK think about all this??  |