Australian
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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.
Show More
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know from a personal experience with the ATO, that what you say is correct, whoopi.
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
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
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???
snake you don't have to hide anything.
You can be loud and proud.
Read what i wrote earlier.
You can be loud and proud.
Read what i wrote earlier.
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 
If I'd asked I would have blown the secret I didn't need to keep...
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
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
If you directly employ people to do video form, build models, write code etc are you then seen as taxable?
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.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
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
hopefully the Aussie tax will be deluged with legitimate claims
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.
A. Whoever the ATO decides to tax that has a loss, which will be no one.
I gamble in my underpants , I hope thats an 'unprofessional manner' 
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.
It sure is, and there's plenty oh holes in them.
Oh and they are bone coloured.
Oh and they are bone coloured.
I bet they weren't bone coloured when you bought them 
Well I do like to put soil in them, you should try it sometime
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ****.
I guess even the Tax Commissioner thinks races are ****.
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.
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.
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
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
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
No one, who is not already paying tax as a professional gambler, will be getting tax rebate. End of story.
Absurd thread.
Nice work whoopi but really you didn't need to bother.
Nice work whoopi but really you didn't need to bother.
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.
That'd be like laying awake at night worrying if Heidi Klum is gonna knock on your door!!!
if it is absurd Kami, why post?
better to take your smugness elsewhere.
better to take your smugness elsewhere.
Cut to the chase, Happy!!!
What does ALL BLACK think about all this??
What does ALL BLACK think about all this??
Spoon why don't you contribute something meaningful or is that beyond your wit?
I recall I posted betfair would lose their appeal. And that Dunaden was outstanding value for the Cup when he was about 40-1 or more.
I recall I posted betfair would lose their appeal. And that Dunaden was outstanding value for the Cup when he was about 40-1 or more.
Piss off, dickhead. Here's your problem.......... 
CREDIBILITY...............ZERO
All Black
Date Joined: 10 Jan 03
23 Nov 11 03:37 Joined: 10 Jan 03 | Topic/replies: 1 |
logroller and doubleagent, are you that insecure.
Happy comes up with a terrific thread and a very important one. Your replies are rude. He bats you back into touch which irks you. He also seems to have a decent command of the English language of which you seem envious, and your only resort is to be lavatorial or adopt the stance of the schoolground bully.
Good on you Happy for holding your ground and persevering with good, very enjoyable thread. I'd forgotten all about this upcoming appeal and the possible consquences.
logroller 23 Nov 11 04:32 Joined: 20 Feb 03 |
allblack, get a room with happy.................. how the fck did u detect envy ffs, let me ask u this, what did the condescending happyvalley contribute to the thread besides pose the question? besides his ill informed opinion and his exaggerations.
Rate reply:
| report block user
THERE....IS....NO....SPOOOOON 23 Nov 11 04:36 Joined: 14 May 09
AllBlack, aaaaaaaaaalways shootin off your mouth
First post in NINE YEARS
Happy Valley 26 Nov 11 04:38 Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 1,292
i don't bother to post, usually, because of what is it Happy calls you, yes ignoramuses like you and let's face it, you are really one and the same, Spoon, Log, DoubleAgent
Amongst other things, Happy makes it very clear to me the problems of operating on low margins and making a proper contribution to racing and the inherent contradiction therein.
You babble along your endless, witless insults and are guilty of your own accusations, no meaningful, positive contribution, just destructive insults that eventually bring all interesting, worthwhile threads to a halt and act as a general barrier to intelligent, meaningful discussion on this and other forums
Joel 26 Nov 11 04:40 Joined: 14 Feb 04
I have nothing against you Happy, but why are you talking about yourself in the third person
Gives me a chuckle to this very day NINE YEARS of waiting for the right opportunity to use your other
forum name and you fk it up logging in.....immediately
CREDIBILITY...............ZERO
All Black
Date Joined: 10 Jan 03
23 Nov 11 03:37 Joined: 10 Jan 03 | Topic/replies: 1 |
logroller and doubleagent, are you that insecure.
Happy comes up with a terrific thread and a very important one. Your replies are rude. He bats you back into touch which irks you. He also seems to have a decent command of the English language of which you seem envious, and your only resort is to be lavatorial or adopt the stance of the schoolground bully.
Good on you Happy for holding your ground and persevering with good, very enjoyable thread. I'd forgotten all about this upcoming appeal and the possible consquences.
logroller 23 Nov 11 04:32 Joined: 20 Feb 03 |
allblack, get a room with happy.................. how the fck did u detect envy ffs, let me ask u this, what did the condescending happyvalley contribute to the thread besides pose the question? besides his ill informed opinion and his exaggerations.
Rate reply:
| report block user
THERE....IS....NO....SPOOOOON 23 Nov 11 04:36 Joined: 14 May 09
AllBlack, aaaaaaaaaalways shootin off your mouth
First post in NINE YEARS
Happy Valley 26 Nov 11 04:38 Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 1,292
i don't bother to post, usually, because of what is it Happy calls you, yes ignoramuses like you and let's face it, you are really one and the same, Spoon, Log, DoubleAgent
Amongst other things, Happy makes it very clear to me the problems of operating on low margins and making a proper contribution to racing and the inherent contradiction therein.
You babble along your endless, witless insults and are guilty of your own accusations, no meaningful, positive contribution, just destructive insults that eventually bring all interesting, worthwhile threads to a halt and act as a general barrier to intelligent, meaningful discussion on this and other forums
Joel 26 Nov 11 04:40 Joined: 14 Feb 04
I have nothing against you Happy, but why are you talking about yourself in the third person
Gives me a chuckle to this very day
NINE YEARS of waiting for the right opportunity to use your otherforum name and you fk it up logging in.....immediately
I don't wish to throw it in his face, but when he comes across all highbrow and pompous.....
seems he needs reminding that we remember
He did ask for something meaningful.... it says alot imo
seems he needs reminding that we remember
He did ask for something meaningful
.... it says alot imo
He's a halfwit. One of the DUMBEST c*nts to ever post on here.
as per usual you are quite wrong - i do not have another forum name.
and unlike you guys, i'm not stupid enough to think i know everything
quite where this pompous and highbrow comes from is a mystery
maybe you just don't like your own schoolground bully mentalities exposed
quite where this pompous and highbrow comes from is a mystery
maybe you just don't like your own schoolground bully mentalities exposed
and what's more if you think i waited nine years to waste a secret forum name on you, you really do suffer from delusions of grandeur
Oi, toolbag. I have no such illusion, it wasn't wasted on me, you wasted it ....... defending yourself
Happy Valley 26 Nov 11 04:38 Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 1,292
i don't bother to post, usually, because of what is it Happy calls you, yes ignoramuses like you and let's face it, you are really one and the same, Spoon, Log, DoubleAgent
Amongst other things, Happy makes it very clear to me the problems of operating on low margins and making a proper contribution to racing and the inherent contradiction therein.
Care to explain otherwise?
Happy Valley 26 Nov 11 04:38 Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 1,292
i don't bother to post, usually, because of what is it Happy calls you, yes ignoramuses like you and let's face it, you are really one and the same, Spoon, Log, DoubleAgent
Amongst other things, Happy makes it very clear to me the problems of operating on low margins and making a proper contribution to racing and the inherent contradiction therein.
Care to explain otherwise?
Very sorry HV but I can't say anything in your defence or even anything about Mr Spooons posts to you, please accept my apology
I can't agree with Happy Valley that this case will open the floodgates for claiming losses. It would be rare for any continued claims for losses to be accepted particularly gambling losses.
However this whole issue is not as black & white as some forumites have suggested.
Until the Walsh/ZR matter is heard before the courts then IT2655 & the Babka case (although recent Stone case is more relevant) still set the criteria for determining whether gambling is a business. Whilst the criteria hasn't yet changed the gambling industry has changed significantly. With BF it is now possible to trade or arb in some cases using software tools which minimise the risk of losses to low levels. This makes the activities of some punters akin to share trading. There are plenty of share traders which are conducting a business and pay tax on profits or claim losses on trading.
I would expect that any high volume repetitive betting activity particularly involving software could be considered a business. I doubt there are many traders left here after turnover fee but anyone making a living from such activity should be concerned about the action taken in this case and hope they don't get a knock on the door from authorities.
However this whole issue is not as black & white as some forumites have suggested.
Until the Walsh/ZR matter is heard before the courts then IT2655 & the Babka case (although recent Stone case is more relevant) still set the criteria for determining whether gambling is a business. Whilst the criteria hasn't yet changed the gambling industry has changed significantly. With BF it is now possible to trade or arb in some cases using software tools which minimise the risk of losses to low levels. This makes the activities of some punters akin to share trading. There are plenty of share traders which are conducting a business and pay tax on profits or claim losses on trading.
I would expect that any high volume repetitive betting activity particularly involving software could be considered a business. I doubt there are many traders left here after turnover fee but anyone making a living from such activity should be concerned about the action taken in this case and hope they don't get a knock on the door from authorities.
You're right Kye, it wont open the floodgates for claiming losses.
The outcome of this case will change absolutely zero. I'm not sure where the idea came from that this will set some sort of precedent. Punters don't decide whether they can be taxed or not, the ATO do.
The outcome of this case will change absolutely zero. I'm not sure where the idea came from that this will set some sort of precedent. Punters don't decide whether they can be taxed or not, the ATO do.
I doubt there are many traders left here after turnover fee but anyone making a living from such activity should be concerned about the action taken in this case and hope they don't get a knock on the door from authorities.
kye, my experience is that the ato won't tax traders on betfair because betfair only has a 'gambling licence' not a 'financial licence'. therefore all 'trading' on betfair is still deemed as gambling'.
kye, my experience is that the ato won't tax traders on betfair because betfair only has a 'gambling licence' not a 'financial licence'. therefore all 'trading' on betfair is still deemed as gambling'.
i think the ATO would be more interested in what he does with his winnings rather than how it it was accumulated. he must have investments, even a few million in the bank would earn a taxable income
iz77778, i don't think that is a determining factor at all. In view of their current activities I reckon if you asked for a ruling with the facts that you make $100k on average a year using a software program that makes thousands of transactions each year & you had no other means to support yourself then i doubt you would get the ruling you wanted.
now if the govt taxed winnings such as lotto and scratchies and keno and raffle prizes - well that would be a different kettle of fish imo
Didn't David Walsh have a ruling too?
Cool that you have ruling but facts must be exactly as put forward for you to rely on it but they can also change view over time particularly in an industry they wouldn't understand so you may not get same answer now.
Cool that you have ruling but facts must be exactly as put forward for you to rely on it but they can also change view over time particularly in an industry they wouldn't understand so you may not get same answer now.
The ATO do not want to tax punters.
They realised $900m slipped through their fingers, and now they are trying to change the rules to get it back. Nothing more, nothing less.
They realised $900m slipped through their fingers, and now they are trying to change the rules to get it back. Nothing more, nothing less.
very glad we've returned to the issue at hand
(spyvspy (whoever you are) - i am perfectly willing and able to take care of myself and am baffled by your post)
(spyvspy (whoever you are) - i am perfectly willing and able to take care of myself and am baffled by your post)
I'm sure you are HV and I think Mr Spooon wasn't baffled by it though
Apologies if you were offended by any of them Mr Aachen
very glad we've returned to the issue at hand
I still want to know how every Self Employed person only makes 10k a year but live a Great Life, Have the best of everything.
They are the People Govt need to look at
They are the People Govt need to look at
Yer then Cry when Declined a Loan.
Just Glad no more Low Doc Loans and Owner Builder loans anymore.
Only people paying Taxes correctly are people working for Companies.
Its the biggest Rort in Australia
Every wont say the Nationality Restaurant runs at a Loss.
But all drive Latest BMWs and pour 10000000000s into Pokies and Casino or send Money overseas.
No wonder all the Hard earners all losing Jobs.
Lloydy
Just Glad no more Low Doc Loans and Owner Builder loans anymore.
Only people paying Taxes correctly are people working for Companies.
Its the biggest Rort in Australia
Every wont say the Nationality Restaurant runs at a Loss.
But all drive Latest BMWs and pour 10000000000s into Pokies and Casino or send Money overseas.
No wonder all the Hard earners all losing Jobs.
Lloydy
LTM - have to agree about the unfairness of tax. It is the same in the UK where so many of the biggest companies "legally" avoid their tax obligations yet the relatively low-wage earners pay evert cent via PAYE schemes.
SpyvSpy - I don't know whether to be amused or insulted if you think I am Hats Aitken. I am neither he nor All Black. I did help Hats get his job though. There's a clue. When I next see him I'll tell him and I'm sure he'll feel equally amused/insulted.
SpyvSpy - I don't know whether to be amused or insulted if you think I am Hats Aitken. I am neither he nor All Black. I did help Hats get his job though. There's a clue. When I next see him I'll tell him and I'm sure he'll feel equally amused/insulted.
aachen • September 18, 2012 5:31 AM BST
730 replies in 6 weeks ..says it all
Report• Quote • Block User spyvspy27 • September 18, 2012 5:55 AM BST
Apologies if you were offended by any of them Mr Aachen
HV, I think you misread my post, it was to poster aachen
730 replies in 6 weeks ..says it all
Report• Quote • Block User spyvspy27 • September 18, 2012 5:55 AM BST
Apologies if you were offended by any of them Mr Aachen
HV, I think you misread my post, it was to poster aachen
Spy - yes I was just about to come on and clarify but you've beaten me to it. I was confused but the scales have now fallen from my eyes. Thank you.
And Hats will be mightily pleased to hear I wasn't confused with him - and me, too!
am neither he nor All Black.
Priceless
Priceless
yes that would seem right to someone like you Spoon who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing
All Black
Date Joined: 10 Jan 03
23 Nov 11 03:37 Joined: 10 Jan 03 | Topic/replies: 1 |
logroller and doubleagent, are you that insecure.
Happy comes up with a terrific thread and a very important one. Your replies are rude. He bats you back into touch which irks you. He also seems to have a decent command of the English language of which you seem envious, and your only resort is to be lavatorial or adopt the stance of the schoolground bully.
Good on you Happy for holding your ground and persevering with good, very enjoyable thread. I'd forgotten all about this upcoming appeal and the possible consquences.
logroller 23 Nov 11 04:32 Joined: 20 Feb 03 |
allblack, get a room with happy.................. how the fck did u detect envy ffs, let me ask u this, what did the condescending happyvalley contribute to the thread besides pose the question? besides his ill informed opinion and his exaggerations.
Rate reply:
| report block user
THERE....IS....NO....SPOOOOON 23 Nov 11 04:36 Joined: 14 May 09
AllBlack, aaaaaaaaaalways shootin off your mouth
First post in NINE YEARS
Happy Valley 26 Nov 11 04:38 Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 1,292
i don't bother to post, usually, because of what is it Happy calls you, yes ignoramuses like you and let's face it, you are really one and the same, Spoon, Log, DoubleAgent
Amongst other things, Happy makes it very clear to me the problems of operating on low margins and making a proper contribution to racing and the inherent contradiction therein.
You babble along your endless, witless insults and are guilty of your own accusations, no meaningful, positive contribution, just destructive insults that eventually bring all interesting, worthwhile threads to a halt and act as a general barrier to intelligent, meaningful discussion on this and other forums
Joel 26 Nov 11 04:40 Joined: 14 Feb 04
I have nothing against you Happy, but why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
Spare us your dribble, AllBlack.......
Answer the question that was asked many times.
Date Joined: 10 Jan 03
23 Nov 11 03:37 Joined: 10 Jan 03 | Topic/replies: 1 |
logroller and doubleagent, are you that insecure.
Happy comes up with a terrific thread and a very important one. Your replies are rude. He bats you back into touch which irks you. He also seems to have a decent command of the English language of which you seem envious, and your only resort is to be lavatorial or adopt the stance of the schoolground bully.
Good on you Happy for holding your ground and persevering with good, very enjoyable thread. I'd forgotten all about this upcoming appeal and the possible consquences.
logroller 23 Nov 11 04:32 Joined: 20 Feb 03 |
allblack, get a room with happy.................. how the fck did u detect envy ffs, let me ask u this, what did the condescending happyvalley contribute to the thread besides pose the question? besides his ill informed opinion and his exaggerations.
Rate reply:
| report block user
THERE....IS....NO....SPOOOOON 23 Nov 11 04:36 Joined: 14 May 09
AllBlack, aaaaaaaaaalways shootin off your mouth
First post in NINE YEARS
Happy Valley 26 Nov 11 04:38 Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 1,292
i don't bother to post, usually, because of what is it Happy calls you, yes ignoramuses like you and let's face it, you are really one and the same, Spoon, Log, DoubleAgent
Amongst other things, Happy makes it very clear to me the problems of operating on low margins and making a proper contribution to racing and the inherent contradiction therein.
You babble along your endless, witless insults and are guilty of your own accusations, no meaningful, positive contribution, just destructive insults that eventually bring all interesting, worthwhile threads to a halt and act as a general barrier to intelligent, meaningful discussion on this and other forums
Joel 26 Nov 11 04:40 Joined: 14 Feb 04
I have nothing against you Happy, but why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
Spare us your dribble, AllBlack.......
Answer the question that was asked many times.
NO ANSWER???????
Gee that light goes out quickly when you face the truth
yes that would seem right to someone like you Spoon who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing
What we all do know is...
You are insecure enough to use a separate forum account to back "yourself" up.
You are stupid enough to expose your ruse, almost immediately.
You are dishonest enough to deny it.
Gee that light goes out quickly when you face the truth yes that would seem right to someone like you Spoon who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing
What we all do know is...
You are insecure enough to use a separate forum account to back "yourself" up.
You are stupid enough to expose your ruse, almost immediately.
You are dishonest enough to deny it.
Spoon I know you aren't the sharpest implement in whatever passes for your canteen - demented, insecure and inadequate but not sharp - but how many times do you have to be told? I am not All Black.
In an odd way I may miss your stalking-like attention when I post on the Aussie forum but you will probably be happier if you leave quietly and try to come up with something constructive and original to say on a thread, rather than hijacking it with your misplaced insults and slurs which reveal far more about you than me.
In an odd way I may miss your stalking-like attention when I post on the Aussie forum but you will probably be happier if you leave quietly and try to come up with something constructive and original to say on a thread, rather than hijacking it with your misplaced insults and slurs which reveal far more about you than me.
I have nothing against you Happy, but why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
Answer please, could be more Hall Of Fame glory.
Answer please, could be more Hall Of Fame glory.
I have answered. I am not All Black. Now why don't you have another shandy and then you'll be even braver. I am busy betting.
And I truly look forward to you contributing something interesting on a thread on any forum - when you do it will be a pleasure to hear from you. And a surprise.
And I truly look forward to you contributing something interesting on a thread on any forum - when you do it will be a pleasure to hear from you. And a surprise.
Answering a question that hasn't been asked... you really are a beauty.
why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the question, obviously.
If you can't remember the context I'll C and P the thread....again
why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the question, obviously.
If you can't remember the context I'll C and P the thread....again
Btw I've been thinking about the rebates issue and whether or not it is central to the authorities success or otherwise in their pursuit of Zeljko and Walsh and one thing springs to mind. It is this. When the tax authorities started all this, I think they had no idea of the rebates and were just pursuing them as they were massive winning punters and they were believed to be conducting themselves in this professional manner I have referred to above.
I truly think rebates weren't on the tax authorities minds or part of their original case. Now the case may or may have not morphed into hingeing on rebates. If so this is entirely fortuitous for the tax people.
I truly think rebates weren't on the tax authorities minds or part of their original case. Now the case may or may have not morphed into hingeing on rebates. If so this is entirely fortuitous for the tax people.
One thing springs to mind
Yes
why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
Yes
why are you talking about yourself in the third person???
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539