Betting full time - declaration of income.

I had the same problem as the OP re the student loans company coming after me for payments and I had to provide lots of statements and an explanation of how I was supporting myself with no income and no benefits. They were fine with it once a proper explanation was provided. You can't blame them for chasing these cases up.

I've also had a confirmation from Inland Revenue saying none of my gambling winnings are taxable and it is not classed as income.

Dr Evil 21 Dec 18:45
Suppose that "private individual living and paying tax in Britain" were a bookmaker. I think under those circumstances HMRC might be a bit interested in his betfair winnings.



Alex the old wrinkled retainer 21 Dec 19:00
Dr Evil has it right. They might also be interested in skimmers for example.

It is just plain wrong to say that profits from a betting exchange are not liable to tax without understanding how the profit is generated. Bear in mind that the tax case on which the current R&C view is based was not by a unanimous decision and was heard 83 years prior to the existence of betting exchanges.

The reason I said 'private individual' was to rule out bookmakers, who are obviously operating a business!

Do all businesses (as opposed to just bookmakers) pay tax on gambling profits?
Surely you couldn't get away with lowering your profit with gambling losses if you run a restaurant or a shop :D

I would expect these guys do for instance:
http://www.centaursportfunds.com/

Surely you couldn't get away with lowering your profit with gambling losses if you run a restaurant or a shop :D

thats fine, I understand the 'you cant offset betting losses against income tax', BUT

The US taxes betting profits & so do some other EU countries, as you can as a 'Capital Gains'-type tax, rather than income so it does happen. It's pretty illogical, so you would think the UK would be clever enough not to do so...

TheInvestor, you have any dealings with this Centaur comapany, difficult to judge if they are safe/legit as quite glossy marketing etc.?

Winnings from here are tax-free. A professional gambler can be liable for tax on income generated from tipping services, personal appearances etc. Also if someone else is providing the cash then their profit is tax-free but yours isn't because you are deemed to be providing a service to them - you are only gambling if you are risking your own cash. So be careful of syndicates and partnerships.

I have not made any money from personal appearances.....yet ;)

Partridge 21 Dec 20:01
TheInvestor, you have any dealings with this Centaur comapany, difficult to judge if they are safe/legit as quite glossy marketing etc.?

No, I haven't. As my own % gains are higher, it wouldn't make sense for me to invest with them.

I am quite interested in attending their free seminar on trading on the sports exchanges though, to have a closer look at their operations and maybe get some useful info. Although usually those 'free seminars' are mainly in the form of a sales pitch for an expensive course.

I would assume that they have £ millions available to trade with.

surely this is the biggest bullsh1t thread ever

who gets heat from the students loan people?

d13phe 21 Dec 21:35


surely this is the biggest bullsh1t thread ever

lol :^0

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim22015.htm

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread and this may have been posted earlier. If so I apologise.

who gets heat from the students loan people?

I did for 18 years. They are the absolute pits of the earth.

does Patrick Veitch pay tax then with all his runners placing bets for him as he is using other people?

I think he would be able to argue that they were self employed and so it would be up to them to declare their position with regard to placing bets for him. They would be providing him with a service, for which they receive information/cash from bets as a return.

Before anyone gets carried away, no don't work for the IR!

DaveEdwards - garbish IMO dave..........

BTW DE - it is clear you ain't got a clue re taxation........................

BTW - naming someone on here is irrelevant to what you have posted DE..........I don't know, and you don't know, what a named person does.........however, if someone engages people to take their orders and place bets on their behalf within strict guidelines ....using the the instructor's money to place bets on their behalf.......then there is no doubt at all about whether they are self-employed or NOT........................................as they are not!


This is not to say that PV is operating in any WAY SHAPE OR FORM along those lines !

Partridge 21 Dec 22:44
does Patrick Veitch pay tax then with all his runners placing bets for him as he is using other people?



DaveEdwards 21 Dec 22:56
I think he would be able to argue that they were self employed and so it would be up to them to declare their position with regard to placing bets for him. They would be providing him with a service, for which they receive information/cash from bets as a return.

Before anyone gets carried away, no don't work for the IR!




I think the answer to this is no - since they simply have a "gamblers agreement" to split any profits that come from gambling. If this is well documented - which I assume it is - then neither side would be taxable. He need not get involved in any arguments over them being employed nor self employed. There's no precedent AFAIK though - but you'd assume the IR are more than aware of the Veitch "project" since he chooses to be so high profile.

If you have to pay tax move to Australia,definately no tax here.

you sure late mail?

i spoke to the ATO, and was told it's a grey area, and if you operate in a businesslike manner it is taxable, more than for recreational purposes.

If you get arrested i would keep quiet about it though. My mate said the income he got from living of immoral earnings came from gambling and he ended up getting 10 years.

First line of the Revenue guidance note -

An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading.



Interesting, if they ever sought to get a court ruling as to what this meant with regard to the activities of some on here.

If you / or anybody is means tested for benefits or student loans whatever,
obviouslly you'd declare what is in your bank account, savings and premium bonds etc.,
but if you wanted to hide some money, whatever you had in your a/c on here, maybe not declare that (?!)

No Tax on Gamblers ........ why cos only a tiny fraction of the pop of the UK .Bettors win . the tiny fraction who win ....... may not win next year .... how the hell can you tax that ..

the same way the yanks tax it
if you win you pay the tax if you lose too bad

....just as they do with the PC

if they were to go for a court case to establish the common law precedent, how much tax would they raise from pro-gamblers vs the amount it would potentially cost them to contest the court case (my guess is not that much, since so few punters are winners)

also - how many gamblers would they put off completely by taxing punters, thus reducing their tax intake from bookies and exchanges?

as 'big issues' go on taxation, i'd be amazed if this was high on the revenues list of priorities, since they've made it clear they consider the 'big picture' to involve a net flow of money from punters to institutions, therefore the sensible thing is to tax the institutions

but of course, what do i know, i'm hardly an expert on the subject

BIM22017 - Trade: exceptions & alternatives: betting and gambling: the professional gambler

[b]The fact that a taxpayer has a system by which they place their bets, or that they are sufficiently successful to earn a living by gambling does not make their activities a trade.

This shows that having expertise or being systematic (

The judgement in Graham v Greene is well worth a read. A 20s Robbie Box he was.

indeed Alex, and that case highlights quite well a lot of the problems with assuming anything concrete about the HMRCs current guidance

i) there seem to be contradictory inferences drawn from the same single case

ii) the precendent is nearly 100 years old

subversion



I had to examine that case eons ago and well before betfair was invented and well before I even considered a profit to be capable of being generated. I had to read it a number of times as I could not fathom how the judgement was finally reached given the rationale presented. It looked to me as if it was a political outcome.

A major issue in the UK would be, I would have thought, the fact that some highrollers could set themselves up as professional gamblers and their losses could become deductible. Luckily the IR in the UK doesn't operate the same way as the IRS (or indeed betfair as regards PC). However there's no guarantees. It depends a lot on the really big winners (7 figures a year) and how they profile themselves, etc IMO. If the IR thought there was a lot of money there (indeed, as much as there might in fact be) they might go after it.

But the big difference is that gamblers don't generally make profits. But many seeders and skimmers do. I believe that it is incorrect to assume that current practice applies to seeders and skimmers.

Just because a profit is generated from a gambling website does not make it profit from gambling.

Alex - re. that Graham v Green case, i agree completely, and the scary thing is - that case, which most of the argument for non-taxation is based on, is from an era where the definition of punter (someone who backs at starting price) and bookie (someone who lays at starting price) was very clear cut... and yet the reasoning is still a total mess

if they do decide to test an exchange trader who both backs and lays in a systematic way, in an attempt to create a modern common law precedent, or attempt to create some statute in this area, who can say what the outcome will be


Treble - yes thats pretty much how i read it too, the revenue/govt currently have much bigger fish to fry... trying create statute or common law around such a complicated area really isn't worth it unless they know the payoff for them will be big

so far, it does seem that they don't think the payoff from taxing punters will be there, because most punters are losers and the net cashflow is from punters to institutions... so they prefer to just tax the institutions... this makes sense, but who knows if this will change if a few 'whale' type punters start making millions and flaunting their tax-free status around... or if theres a sudden moral backlash against gambling, etc etc

It is refreshing to be able to discuss this with somebody that knows their tax onions. The mob that adopt an attitude of "the bloke down the pub has a different tax code to me" was starting to wear. Especially when they get abusive and use upper case.

I would assume you work in the business. Would that be correct?

If R&C have a pop then I might just come out of retirement. Unraveling and arguing the nature of different betfair transactions could be interesting. I used to enjoy my technical arguments with the Inland Revenue especially as I usually won. :)

lol Alex, i wouldnt really claim to know my tax onions - i'm currently studying for a Law degree part time, and have taken a pretty keen interest in the subject of betting tax because of my time spent on here...

and when i started looking 'behind the curtains', ignoring the wording of the HMRC guidance and actually looking at what the actual law itself was based on, it became obvious very quickly that a lot of the reasoning is very inadequate and out of date when applied to something as complex as betfair...

... and if the current case law precedent was applied to a modern situation, in a court presided over by a judge who probably knows next to nothing about gambling, the outcome would be far from certain

... and of course, not to mention the fact that the country is nearly broke and so crazy govt statutes are not out of the question either if the govt/revenue feel there is a golden goose to be plucked

so i guess that puts my knowledge above the level of the 'man in the street', but i'm not exactly a qualified tax lawyer (although one day, who knows...)

Does anyone remember the option to pay tax either pre-bet or post-bet when placing bets at the bookies? 10p in the pounds. Why did that stop?

Alex, if you are making money by placing bets on here you are gambling irrespective of volumes, profitability or strategy. Terms like seeders and skimmers don't exist in the IR vocabulary - yet.

The Betfairy 23 Dec 09:49
Does anyone remember the option to pay tax either pre-bet or post-bet when placing bets at the bookies? 10p in the pounds. Why did that stop?



It is because they applied a top up Corporation rate on betting companies to compensate for the loss of revenue.

I am ok with old tax rools but not hot on the new stuff.

catfloppo 23 Dec 09:51
Alex, if you are making money by placing bets on here you are gambling irrespective of volumes, profitability or strategy. Terms like seeders and skimmers don't exist in the IR vocabulary - yet.




That is right. It can only be a matter of time though.

... and if the current case law precedent was applied to a modern situation, in a court presided over by a judge who probably knows next to nothing about gambling, the outcome would be far from certain





I used to act for a prominent QC and one that is still on the bench. He was hearing a complex tax case and he asked me for my view. I had to admit that it was not my area of expertise. Astonishingly he admitted that he did not understand the facts at all but relied on the presentations of KPMG.

It is scary.

I think they are shrewd enough to realise that anyone making money here would simply move abroad if they were taxed. They could go to a whole load of bother chasing nothing when they have bigger fish to fry. It will only happen if it becomes political imo.

It will only happen if it becomes political imo

That would be my guess too. As mentioned earlier, successive governments have gone out of their way to encourage betting to stay onshore. I cannot see why, in the foreseeable future, they would u-turn. Besides, targetting exchange gamblers would lead to huge political negotiations, since it would effectively be punishing Betfair at the expense of the traditional bookmakers.

There used to be a tax loophole by living in Belgium when a major capital gain was in the offing. A loophole in Belgian tax law and the double taxation treaty. Despite millions being at stake only one person actually relocated of the people I advised. The rest just decided to pay up and stick with their life in the UK.

catfloppo - under some interpretations of the current ancient case law, you could already be liable for tax... since the precedent seems to treat layers as bookies, and thus bookies as carrying out a trade, and thus taxable

just because the HMRC currently interprets the law a certain way doesnt mean as much as you think... HMRC guidance is NOT law, merely one attempt to interpret it

the lack of exchange-specific precedent does not mean there is no precedent for backing and laying, which ultimately is all people do on betfair isnt it

but yes, i agree that the HMRC taking an interest is unlikely for reasons already stated

unfortunately, unlikely is not the same as impossible

Which law is it that repealed the 10p tax on betting?

subversion 23 Dec 10:09
but yes, i agree that the HMRC taking an interest is unlikely for reasons already stated

unfortunately, unlikely is not the same as impossible






Exactly. Which brings us full circle and back to the point on which I got so much abuse.

It is incorrect to advise others that profits generated from betfair or not potentially liable to tax.

The Betfairy 23 Dec 10:10
Which law is it that repealed the 10p tax on betting?





It will be the Finance Act 19__ summink.

Alex the old wrinkled retainer 23 Dec 10:11
Exactly. Which brings us full circle and back to the point on which I got so much abuse.

It is incorrect to advise others that profits generated from betfair or not potentially liable to tax.


well i'm glad i managed to come to the same conclusion independently. guess this part-time Law degree isn't a total waste of time after all

since it was only a few months ago that i started the study, i can still remember what it was like to be a 'man in the street'... and so i can see clearly why a lot of the posters on this thread are confused and making mistakes about what is actually 'LAW' and what is merely guidance, empty language or interpretation

the fact that the revenue/govt have no interest in the current state of affairs has simply no bearing on what the LAW would have to say should they decide to take an interest, for whatever reason

Taken from the racing post on 24/10/2004 :

Busines Matters: Racing & the tax man: Tip of the week: Profits from exchanges are all yours

Published: 24/10/2004 (Sport) Julie Butler
FROM now on, I will be addressing frequently asked questions in the field of taxation, as they apply to matters in the racing and betting industries. So here goes. . .
Q: I was a licensed bookmaker and now I just play the exchanges. Do I have to pay tax on my exchange profits?
A: Licensed bookmakers pay tax, but pro punters do not. Even if pro punters lay horses on the exchanges, this is not taxable. However, if bookmakers use (or integrate) the exchanges into their trade as a bookmaker, then this is taxable. If a licensed bookmaker ceases trading as a bookmaker just to play the exchanges, again this is not taxable. However, there must be clear cut-off for both the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise. It is suggested that clearance with these authorities is obtained.
Q: I earn my living playing the exchanges, but back this up with some self-employed work. Do I have to pay tax on all the earnings (including the exchanges) or just the self-employed earnings?
The profits (and losses) on the exchanges are tax-free. Income tax is only payable on the self-employed earnings. It is, however, suggested that full records are kept and the 'additional information' section of the tax return is noted with very brief details of the exchange activity. Every individual has to agree their own position with the tax inspector and sources of extra exchange profits might need explaining.
- Julie Butler FCA is the author of the LexisNexis Butterworths Tolley title Equine Tax Planning. ISBN: 0406966540. To order a copy call 020 8662 2000. Email: address supplied

I looked at a prospectus for an unaccredited correspondence course in Law so I am also no longer "the man in the street".

Unfortunately, I decided my field of expertise is Maritime Law and piracy on the High Seas so I will have to defer to my learned friend on this issue. :^0

can that Julie Butler woman (or anyone on this thread) offer a definition of 'punter', in the context of the very complex backing and laying strategies employed by many on exchanges, with reference to existing case law or statute?

because the HMRC certainly doesnt, in any of its guidance

it merely refers to ancient case law that concludes anyone who backs horses at starting prices is a punter... and those who are layers or who, "calculating the odds in the case of various horses over a long period of time and quoting them so that on the whole the aggregate odds

unless of course your betfair strategy doesnt involve any laying or trading

I suppose this may come down to Betfair's argument that it is a bookmaker.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/cande1.htm

C&E1 General betting duty abolished

A radical reform of betting duty, which will create the right competitive environment for British-based bookmakers to develop their business domestically and internationally, and give punters a better deal, was announced by the Chancellor today.

Under the new system, the current General Betting Duty of 6.75 per cent on total stakes will be replaced with a 15 per cent tax on bookmakers? gross profits, defined as the difference between the stakes laid with them and the winnings they pay out.

This reformed tax structure makes it possible for bookmakers to absorb the tax and to end the 9 per cent 'deduction' that they currently charge on stakes, which means that punters will pay no tax. It therefore makes it possible for UK bookmakers to develop their domestic and international business from an onshore base, competing from a position of strength in the growing global market for telephone and Internet betting.

As a result of the changes announced today, the largest UK bookmakers have said that they will relocate their offshore operations to the UK. They expect to take advantage of the new duty system, the UK's reputation as a centre of bookmaking integrity and expertise, and the skilled staff and IT infrastructure that is available from a UK base to grow their e-commerce businesses, bringing international business and increased employment opportunities to the UK. The extra domestic and international betting turnover the reform will generate should enable both the betting and racing industries to prosper. Government revenues will share in the gain from increased turnover in the medium term.

...

How the Gross Profits Tax will work

Under the current system, a punter placing a bet pays an additional charge of 9 per cent on his stake, representing:

6.75 per cent tax;
approximately 1.25 -1.5 per cent horse race levy (where appropriate);
and a residual deduction for bookmakers' administrative costs.

Under the new system the customer should pay no deductions when placing the same bet. The tax charge, horse race levy and administration charges should be absorbed by the bookmaker.

In other words, unless the government of the day wants to drive the betting industry offshore it will not re-introduce the betting tax. Also, so long as Betfair can win the argument that it is a bookmaker (it does have a bookmaker licence after all), then we are all "punters".

I feel safe for now, at any rate.

i feel fairly safe too Betfairy

but it is important to note, especially those whose living relies on this, that the existing body of law is pretty badly inadequate

any laws that we can refer to with close to 100% certainty are still to be argued and decided

and as you say, a lot of it will hinge on thrashing out exact technical definitions... such as 'what is a punter (in the context of the very complex exchange environment)', 'is Betfair a bookie', etc etc etc

so we probably have nothing to worry about, but i'll still feel a lot safer if they can nail down some proper LAW rather than mere assumptions and guidance

Alex the old wrinkled retainer 23 Dec 10:07
There used to be a tax loophole by living in Belgium when a major capital gain was in the offing. A loophole in Belgian tax law and the double taxation treaty. Despite millions being at stake only one person actually relocated of the people I advised. The rest just decided to pay up and stick with their life in the UK.


I advised a couple of clients who went over to Belgium, only one managed to stick it out though - the other returned after 6 months. The problem was the 5 years that you needed to stay over there for.

2001.

I was guessing at much earlier than that.

Was it really 5 years? I thought it was 3 but I eventually came to hate advising on tax so I am maybe blocking the details out.

Think so, although my memory is hazy too - there were other countries available too that sounded a lot nicer than Belgium but I guess as Belgium is the closest then that was the one most chosen

The Betfairy 23 Dec 11:28


I feel safe for now, at any rate.



If my understanding of what you do it correct then I would feel safe in your position. Governments very rarely introduce retrospective legislation.

The people that need to be worried are the ones that don't gamble at all and just make books.

JamesBlakesHugeArse 23 Dec 11:39
Think so, although my memory is hazy too - there were other countries available too that sounded a lot nicer than Belgium but I guess as Belgium is the closest then that was the one most chosen




Ah there a big hoo ha about this. Belguim had a CGT exception and despite pressure from other EU countries they refused to change their laws. Basically they wanted cash rich foreign nationals in their country.

Alex the old wrinkled retainer 23 Dec 11:41
The people that need to be worried are the ones that don't gamble at all and just make books.

i think the nightmare scenario is a very clued up HMRC insider who fully understands the whole spectrum of exchange strategies, from 'risky' punting to nearly 'risk-free' such a making books, arbing, skimming etc

and then tries to draw this distinction in a court of law

i definitely agree with your earlier comment Alex - it would be a fascinating debate to be involved in, on an intellectual level

arbers in theory could be in trouble, however it doesnt take much imagination to turn an arber into a gambler

thats the problem isn't it JamesBlake - the exchange platform has totally blurred the lines, and the law simply hasn't kept pace

tax potential would be peanuts compared to Big Business loop holes

If Betfair's operations are governed by a bookmakers' licence I find it very difficult to believe that any one of us, no matter what technique employed, is not a customer of a bookmaker as described in the legislation. In other words, if Betfair pays the tax, the customer doesn't. Can it really be more complex than that?

Can it really be more complex than that?




Yes. And I think that you have gone off on a tangent.

Okay.

Betfairy - our winnings and losses are from others punters though aren't they... so immediately the waters are muddied

According to Betfair it's not; Betfair match the bets, we don't match with each other. That's what they say, anyway, and I have no means to do so outside of the Betting Exchange system. So I am customer of a bookmaker.

'according to Betfair' is irrelevant - Betfair are not the law

subversion 23 Dec 11:49
Alex the old wrinkled retainer 23 Dec 11:41

i think the nightmare scenario is a very clued up HMRC insider who fully understands the whole spectrum of exchange strategies, from 'risky' punting to nearly 'risk-free' such a making books, arbing, skimming etc

and then tries to draw this distinction in a court of law



They may do it that way. The Taxes Management Act allows the provision of information. (If it is still called the TMA.) So they can go to betfair and ask for information and then make a judgement on what the tax take could be and then simply advise the politicians to change the law.

But people that are simply making books and not gambling, in my view, are already within the tax net.

Alex - rather than advising the politicians to introduce statutes in future, could they not argue, as you have suggested for people making books, that these 'non-risky' activities are taxable under EXISTING common law principles?

based on the ridiculously outdated case law?

If bookmakers are paying tax on behalf of the customer, and the customer is now also liable for tax, then surely the bookmaker needs to rebate the customer, else the customer is, in effect, being taxed twice.

subversion 23 Dec 12:05
Alex - rather than advising the politicians to introduce statutes in future, could they not argue, as you have suggested for people making books, that these 'non-risky' activities are taxable under EXISTING common law principles?

based on the ridiculously outdated case law?


Yes. Just based on tried and tested tax law on what constitutes a trade with a view to a profit. We don't need to go to an isolated 1926 Tax Case. There are stacks or precedents for that. It becomes much more difficult if somebody is making books and gambling.

They are only paying betting tax not income tax

** of

Good point - the distinction gambling duty and income tax.

Betfairy - if you sell me some shares on the LSE, i have to pay stamp duty, you have to pay capital gains tax, we both have to pay exchange fees (and the exchange gets taxed on its revenues), etc etc...

the government has no qualms about multiple taxes being levied on business models like this, does it

Alex the old wrinkled retainer 23 Dec 12:17
It becomes much more difficult if somebody is making books and gambling.


thats pretty much what i was referring to - bookmaking has plenty of specific precedent, whereas probably 'non-risky' arbing, skimming, market-making etc have far less specific precedent (when talking about gambling anyway - plenty of precedent for these activities in financial markets, no doubt)

so could these other 'non-risky' activities be caught by existing case law?

if i worked for HMRC, and they deemed it something worth pursuing, i reckon a decent case could be constructed couldnt it

subversion 23 Dec 12:21
Betfairy - if you sell me some shares on the LSE, i have to pay stamp duty, you have to pay capital gains tax, we both have to pay exchange fees (and the exchange gets taxed on its revenues), etc etc...




There is another fascinating subject. Share trading is generally accepted to be liable to CGT and not income tax. However I am aware that people have claimed share trading as a trade and have claimed losses against other income.

The person that pulled that stunt should be known to you and his name will come back to me in a while. A bit of an issue with him on the Sunderland manager market, or so I understand.

It could even be Dr Evil. There is Evil in his name somewhere. Anyway he is an ex taxman a shorter and prominent.











Dr Evil 21 Dec 18:45
Suppose that "private individual living and paying tax in Britain" were a bookmaker. I think under those circumstances HMRC might be a bit interested in his betfair winnings.

If it can be argued that a person were carrying on a trade by profiting from gambling (that is, making a risk-free book by using Betfair), then surely he is also liable to pay gambling duty?

Ignore the mischief maker, your situation is fine Chris.

I am out of my depth here betfairy but you could be right.

When can a completely risk free position be achieved in betfair? Almost all trading/arbing involves an element of risk - there is a "gamble" involved somewhere

Amanda Hugnkiss 23 Dec 12:39
Ignore the mischief maker, your situation is fine Chris.





Amanda,

My tax code is not the same as the bloke down the pub. He has 665L and I have 453L.

Do I have a case to complain to R&C please?

JamesBlakesHugeArse 23 Dec 12:42
When can a completely risk free position be achieved in betfair? Almost all trading/arbing involves an element of risk - there is a "gamble" involved somewhere

same can be applied to bookies can't it... their business model isn't completely risk free, and yet they still get taxed

Does gambling winnings fall under Capital Gains or Income?

The UK Tax Laws clearly state that gambling winnings are exempt of Capital Gains.

Therefore, for a person to be liable to income tax, would it not have to be proved that his gambling winnings are not winnings but was income. In other words, he would have to be proved to be a bookmaker?

If he is a bookmaker, then surely he would have to possess of gaming licence and then also be liable to Remote Gaming Duty?

I still feel safe, for now :)

JamesBlakesHugeArse 23 Dec 12:42
When can a completely risk free position be achieved in betfair? Almost all trading/arbing involves an element of risk - there is a "gamble" involved somewhere




Agreed. But the bookies also take a gamble do they not when they make books? I have not noticed a zero Corporation Tax charge in their published accounts when they make a profit.

The Betfairy 23 Dec 12:45
he would have to be proved to be a bookmaker?

If he is a bookmaker, then surely he would have to possess of gaming licence and then also be liable to Remote Gaming Duty?

either that, or found that you've been bookmaking without a license ;)

(only kidding - i'm not that paranoid)

I think it's a serious point. Maybe the whole thing can be argued as simply as that. Either:

a) there is no income tax to pay, ever (with the exception of partnerships/syndicates/investments where one party is earning by charging a commission)

b) there is income tax payable and therefore a bookmaking licence is required and gaming duty should be paid.

Have I missed something?

well that's it really, the individual is not a company, has no licence, is not subject to corporation tax - gambling/trading/arbing is similar to share dealing - you take a position and once you are out of that position you are either in profit or showing a loss. But our type of gambling is not to be assessed as a capital gain?

The company is taxed very differently to the individual - would be interested to see what the Revenue would do should a group of indivuals come together, pool resources, minimise costs for the purposes of trading/arbing? Or should I say, it will be interesting to see what they will say when they become aware of it.

The Betfairy 23 Dec 13:0

Have I missed something?




Yes. Tax legislation, case law and practice bears no direct relationship to bookmaking licences. Whether part time or full time bears no direct relationship either.

The company is taxed very differently to the individual -




In the UK the same basic principles apply whether incorporated or not.

Badges of trade innit.

a puzzling thread