It's not just Betfair though - there will be many winners on here who are not winners from their betting overall.

Can't see how it would fall under capital gains, Getafix.  I think they would have to introduce new legislation.

The reason for declaring my winnings is that it is my only source of income and if they accept what you have put on your tax return, provided it is true, it is much harder for them to change their minds retrospectively - although they have a year to think about it :/

Didn't I just explain that?

These Capital Gains comments are a red herring.  A betting slip or electronic gambling transaction is a chargeable asset just as a share certificate is.  So profits would be liable to CGT if there was not a specific exemption.

Aspro had joined the ignorant and simplistic approach adopted by Doubled.  Under current practice R&C do not appear to be attempting to tax exchange gains. However profits could be taxed under current legislation and case law for a small minority of exchange users if they so wished where it is an adventure in the nature of a trade and is not gambling   ...............end of

So profit from gambling is not taxable because it is 'gambling' ?

Is that the point ? 


So then what happens if you have a profitable system ? eg trading ?

Trading (or whatever you want to call it) is as much gambling as more traditional methods.  You are just backing a series of 1.01 shots, or similar.  Once the money is in the system it is at risk and is therefore a gamble.

Aspro had joined the ignorant and simplistic approach

I don't need to join any approach Alex; I've been a financial adviser for nearly 30 years and I've dealt directly with tax offices regarding the matter in question... tick tock!

Erm, excuse me from coming in on this testosterone fuelled argument but aren't you all arguing the same thing that they are not taxable, but you never know they could be in the future.

I know a bit about tax so will argue with everyone to prove how clever I am .......Na Na Na Na Na

T
I
C
K

T
O
C
K

I was actually the 'Man from the Pru' for half those years; the rest as an IFA which, as you know, is a little deeper than a tied rep and goes a tad beyond pensions and life... and the crowbar ;)

Might have been "Honest Al"....

So - if you give your friend the stake to put on a winning bet then technically you must pay tax ?
crazy!

How about all those 'odds to' middlemen ? eg they take your betting bank and bet for you ?
cant see that working - can you ?

Sorry, *should

you need to think about whether morally you are happy to not pay tax on your income in a similar way that bankers are being asked/expected to give up their bonuses even though they may be legally entitled to them.

Banking is simple compared to gambling, just take money in and pay say 3% to depositors, then loan that money to lenders and charge them 10%. Where's my bonus?

No worries if you want to take bigger gambles, the tax payer will bail you out - win win.

The money that was creamed out of the system by a few, before the collapse, was colossal.

You imagine someone on here winning 100k a year only to provide 90k in losing betting slips ? 

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I can't see it anywhere on this thread:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM22017.htm

The HMRC's view:

BIM22017 - Trade: Exceptions & alternatives: Betting and gambling - the professional gambler

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.

The case of Graham v Green [1925] 9TC309 concerned a man whose sole means of livelihood came from betting on horses at starting prices. Rowlatt J says at pages 313 and 314:

Now we come to betting, pure and simple… the man who bets with the bookmaker, and that is this case. These are mere bets. Each time he puts on his money, at whatever may be the starting price. I do not think he could be said to organise his effort in the same way as a bookmaker organises his. I do not think the subject matter from his point of view is susceptible of it. In effect all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player at cards, who plays every day. He plays to- day and he plays to-morrow and he plays the next day and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But I do not think that you can find, in his case, any conception arising in which his individual operations can be said to be merged in the way that particular operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man ... is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting. The subject is involved in great difficulty of language, which I think represents great difficulty of thought. There is no tax on a habit. I do not think ”habitual” or even “systematic” fully describes what is essential in the phrase “trade, adventure, profession or vocation”.

This shows that having expertise or being systematic (“studying form”) is not enough to create a trade of being a ”professional gambler”.

Some ”professional gamblers” do carry on a trade, for example, where they receive appearance money for appearing on television programmes. They are providing a service to a customer (the television production company) for reward. Whether their gambling winnings are proceeds of that trade would depend upon the facts.

Bookies run to a book though cosmic ,meaning you shouldn't win (according to theory) but more importantly  Bookies take your money anonymously - (How could it be proved you won at the Bookies ?  )

it would all be very difficult to administer ,not sure what system they use in the States - but it's certainly  not like a  windows cleaning round where you can prove /disprove