Premium charge and the horse racing levy

Assuming the profits relate to GB racing, 10%. It forms part of BF's gross profits, just like commission, so is therefore within the Levy.

While that is what the answer should be, I wonder if anyone knows if that really is the case? Can anyone confirm for sure that Betfair do give premium charge money to the levy?

The only parties who can answer your Q are BF and Levy Board. The latter is not allowed to give out details of who pays what, so BF is your only option. Ask them.

dont think betfair have to give anything to the levy after their move to gibralter

Given the following (dated 8th September 2011) it could become much worse for premium charge payers and other winners at UK horse racing. 

-----------------

"The British Horseracing Authority, together with William Hill Organisation Ltd, yesterday lodged an application for a judicial review of the Levy Board’s decision that it could not seek to impose levy on business users of betting exchanges.

Explaining the reason for the decision, Chris Brand, Acting Chief Executive of the Authority, said:

“We have always maintained that this is essentially a legal question and that clarity can only be determined by the courts. We urged the Levy Board to take this step, but they refused. The process adopted by the Levy Board thus provided no definitive outcome, evidenced not least by the fact that the decision in question was arrived at solely on the basis of the chairman's casting vote. That is very unsatisfactory.

“In taking their decision, the Levy Board acknowledged that it was open to anyone disagreeing with their interpretation of the law to seek a judicial review, and that is what we are now seeking. Given this acknowledgement, we hope that the Levy Board will work with us to keep the legal process amicable and swift.

“The bulk of the work required for this process has already been undertaken by way of the legal advice which both Racing and the Levy Board have taken as part of the lengthy, but ultimately inconclusive, consultation exercise. We are optimistic that this will help to keep the costs of the process to the minimum.

“Given the rapidly declining income from the Levy, it would have been irresponsible not to seek clarification on this aspect of the law.”

So the Horsey guy's would benefit from a BF punter winning on Football or Golf???

Isn't the key phrase "business users of betting exchanges"?

Betfair made a voluntary donation in June of £6m to the Levy based on what it would have paid in Levy if it had remained onshore.


I hope this continues.

On reading racing's response

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/levy/Racing's%20Response%20to%20HBLB%20Consultation%20on%20Betting%20Exchanges.pdf

It appears racing authorities are suggesting traders, arbers, bots and shrewdies (professional gamblers)  may be carrying on a business.



Nonesense I know

That's a good million wasted by the BHA and Hills sharesholders.

The levy board seemed to have gotten crystal clear legal opinions about Betfair's customers and the lack of the need for them to pay levy:

See the news articles on their site:

http://www.hblb.org.uk/news.php

This is infighting among different parts of the racing establishment and is unlikely ultimately to affect bf winning players w/out a redrafting of legislation.

The Levy Board concluded (after taking extensive legal advice) that you cd be in business in the sense of being a winning professional punter but not be carrying on a business (specifically of 'taking and negotiating bets') in the sense of the relevant Act.

Bf is a bookmaker and anyone betting on the site is betting w/ it. There is no clear legal basis for challenging these definitions.

All that has happened is that the inept BHA leadership will alienate the Levy Board.

They shd instead just try to publicise the sport.

Mr Magoo wrote:
"The levy board seemed to have gotten crystal clear legal opinions about Betfair's customers and the lack of the need for them to pay levy:"

Yes but the BHA who are instigating the judicial review with Hill's are taking their cue from their brief Olswang who disageee with Lord Pannicks interpretation and dont think it is crytal clear.

http://www.hblb.org.uk/documents/BECpostLegal/Olswang_letter_to_Paul_Roy_19th_April.pdf

Legal eagles win again.

Love Paul Dixon's comment in their support of the challenge, "It's a shot to nothing". No Paul, it's a waste of the BHA's time and money (most likely paid for by Hill's).

Maybe they should just ask Hills for 10% of their profits from racing internet bets?