General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Where I can find the law that says so?
Show More
You won't find a law because there isn't one. Grahame v Green TC 1926 is the current authority and a jolly good read it is too.
Hi Alex its been a few years, hope you are well and winning.
Not well and doing modestly well. And you?
Sorry to hear that Alex, I know its been a struggle, I'm fúcked so I just make the best of it. In my case its just crippling arthritis, so not life threatening, but a fúcker non the less.
Sorry to hear that Alex, I know its been a struggle, I'm fúcked so I just make the best of it. In my case its just crippling arthritis, so not life threatening, but a fúcker non the less.
Alex, I have to go, after another sleepless night, uisce beatha -whiskey, has finally taken effect and I'm off to bed, good luck.
If you go to the R&C website I expect that you will find a current statement of practice that says tax on gambling is not currently taxed. That is not the same as saying that profits from betting exchanges are not theoretically taxable.
Please send all your monies to Mr. Okotukutekwenge. He collects all the 1p's and 2p's people have forgotten about.
If profits on Betfair were taxable then you would also be allowed to claim your losses as tax deductible expenses. I would doubt that the HMRC would want to allow people to do that, so I would doubt that Betfair profits would be taxable.
Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end of
If profits on Betfair were taxable then you would also be allowed to claim your losses as tax deductible expenses. I would doubt that the HMRC would want to allow people to do that, so I would doubt that Betfair profits would be taxable.
It's often suggested that if the UK government were to make gambling income taxable then as a direct result gambling losses could also be set against the tax due on all income. I fail to see why that would necessarily be the case?
Based on my very limited understanding of the US tax system, it appears that most gambling income is taxable but gambling losses can only be deducted up to the level of declared gambling income.
I am aware that the UK and the US currently have very different tax systems. Despite that, I suspect that if the UK government were to spend the time and money altering the system to make gambling income taxable they wouldn't neglect to restrict the amount of gambling losses that could be set against other taxable income.
I have no wish to see the introduction of a tax on gambling income but I'm not at all convinced by the argument that it couldn't/wouldn't be introduced simply because, as it stands, gambling losses could then be set against other taxable income.
It's often suggested that if the UK government were to make gambling income taxable then as a direct result gambling losses could also be set against the tax due on all income. I fail to see why that would necessarily be the case?
Based on my very limited understanding of the US tax system, it appears that most gambling income is taxable but gambling losses can only be deducted up to the level of declared gambling income.
I am aware that the UK and the US currently have very different tax systems. Despite that, I suspect that if the UK government were to spend the time and money altering the system to make gambling income taxable they wouldn't neglect to restrict the amount of gambling losses that could be set against other taxable income.
I have no wish to see the introduction of a tax on gambling income but I'm not at all convinced by the argument that it couldn't/wouldn't be introduced simply because, as it stands, gambling losses could then be set against other taxable income.
Feb 3, 2012 -- 3:02AM, DOUBLED wrote:
Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end of
Are you a tax expert please?
The following document is well worth reading for any of you with any doubt, it relates to horseracing but does go into the tax situation, so a must read for any sports gambler. I will copy and paste a section but best to read full document in order to get context:
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/Racing-Submission-to-HBLB-Consultation-Exercise.pdf
5.2 With regard to the tax treatment of betting exchange customers, HM Treasury
considered that this raised two issues:
First, whether it “should tax persons who lay bets on betting exchanges on the
grounds that they are bookmakers”. HM Treasury decided that “taxing layers on
exchanges, purely on the basis that they lay bets, would not be fair or proportionate”
and it explained this on the following basis: ”Whilst tax law does limit tax liabilities
for bookmakers to their gross profits from lay bets, it does not link being a
bookmaker to laying a bet. Instead it defines a bookmaker as someone who receives
or negotiates bets by way of business. For bookmakers, it is clear that laying bets is
a business activity, in the sense that it is carried out for the purposes of a trade and
has an inbuilt system of profit. This is not generally true for layers on exchanges who
are not conducting a trade, nor are they generally able to build in a profit margin to
their price. The decision not to tax layers on exchanges is also consistent with social
policy set out in the Gambling Act. I should stress that bookmakers are already liable
for duty on their gross profits from lay bets on exchanges, and HMRC will continue to
ensure compliance with this.”
Second, as to “whether there are persons who are in business on the betting
exchanges more generally and whether these people should be taxed as
bookmakers.”
HM Treasury stated:
“We have looked more widely at whether there is a group of users on betting
exchanges who are acting by way of business and are not currently being taxed.
Whilst there are clearly differing levels of activity on exchanges and some users do
bet in high volumes, there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as
running a business, as opposed to merely being high-volume gamblers, who have
traditionally been outside the tax net.”
Betfair is the bookmaker, and as such "negotiates" all trades. We as users, whether profitable overall or not, do not create a trade as betfair pays the taxes from their advantage of negotiating the bet (they create the trade) and are thus paid through their commission and prem charges etc...
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/Racing-Submission-to-HBLB-Consultation-Exercise.pdf
5.2 With regard to the tax treatment of betting exchange customers, HM Treasury
considered that this raised two issues:
First, whether it “should tax persons who lay bets on betting exchanges on the
grounds that they are bookmakers”. HM Treasury decided that “taxing layers on
exchanges, purely on the basis that they lay bets, would not be fair or proportionate”
and it explained this on the following basis: ”Whilst tax law does limit tax liabilities
for bookmakers to their gross profits from lay bets, it does not link being a
bookmaker to laying a bet. Instead it defines a bookmaker as someone who receives
or negotiates bets by way of business. For bookmakers, it is clear that laying bets is
a business activity, in the sense that it is carried out for the purposes of a trade and
has an inbuilt system of profit. This is not generally true for layers on exchanges who
are not conducting a trade, nor are they generally able to build in a profit margin to
their price. The decision not to tax layers on exchanges is also consistent with social
policy set out in the Gambling Act. I should stress that bookmakers are already liable
for duty on their gross profits from lay bets on exchanges, and HMRC will continue to
ensure compliance with this.”
Second, as to “whether there are persons who are in business on the betting
exchanges more generally and whether these people should be taxed as
bookmakers.”
HM Treasury stated:
“We have looked more widely at whether there is a group of users on betting
exchanges who are acting by way of business and are not currently being taxed.
Whilst there are clearly differing levels of activity on exchanges and some users do
bet in high volumes, there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as
running a business, as opposed to merely being high-volume gamblers, who have
traditionally been outside the tax net.”
Betfair is the bookmaker, and as such "negotiates" all trades. We as users, whether profitable overall or not, do not create a trade as betfair pays the taxes from their advantage of negotiating the bet (they create the trade) and are thus paid through their commission and prem charges etc...
I think I posted wrong document but that section is still relevant to this thread... the documents worth reading can be found here:
http://corporate.betfair.com/media/press-releases/2010/2010-10-27a.aspx
Exact links:
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/HBLB-Consultation-Exercise-Betfair-Submission.pdf
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/Racing-Submission-to-HBLB-Consultation-Exercise.pdf
http://corporate.betfair.com/media/press-releases/2010/2010-10-27a.aspx
Exact links:
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/HBLB-Consultation-Exercise-Betfair-Submission.pdf
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/Racing-Submission-to-HBLB-Consultation-Exercise.pdf
Yep, this is the critical part:
“We have looked more widely at whether there is a group of users on betting
exchanges who are acting by way of business and are not currently being taxed.
Whilst there are clearly differing levels of activity on exchanges and some users do
bet in high volumes, there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as
running a business, as opposed to merely being high-volume gamblers, who have
traditionally been outside the tax net.”
iirc that dates back to about 1993.
“We have looked more widely at whether there is a group of users on betting
exchanges who are acting by way of business and are not currently being taxed.
Whilst there are clearly differing levels of activity on exchanges and some users do
bet in high volumes, there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as
running a business, as opposed to merely being high-volume gamblers, who have
traditionally been outside the tax net.”
iirc that dates back to about 1993.
Luckily nobody has yet ripped me apart for saying 1993. I mean't 2003.
Getafix compare the relative sophistication of that document to this idiotic statement made by an FBI agent according to the link below:
"this investigation has determined that Ivan Mindlin directs William Thurman Walters on the placing of what are believed to be layoff’ bets for the ‘Computer’ group. Walters operates a large bookmaking operation which be uses to place bets on desired games..."
This allegation was the keystone of special agent Noble’s investigation. Layoff bets, by definition, are made exclusively by bookmakers wishing to protect themselves against large losses by making bets with other bookmakers.
Only bookmakers lay according to the FBI, a bit like the British bookies saying layers should be taxed.
http://www.offshore****/images/COMPUTER.htm
"this investigation has determined that Ivan Mindlin directs William Thurman Walters on the placing of what are believed to be layoff’ bets for the ‘Computer’ group. Walters operates a large bookmaking operation which be uses to place bets on desired games..."
This allegation was the keystone of special agent Noble’s investigation. Layoff bets, by definition, are made exclusively by bookmakers wishing to protect themselves against large losses by making bets with other bookmakers.
Only bookmakers lay according to the FBI, a bit like the British bookies saying layers should be taxed.
http://www.offshore****/images/COMPUTER.htm
.
http://www.offshorebet tor.com/images/COMPUTER.htm
remove space in link above
http://www.offshorebet tor.com/images/COMPUTER.htm
remove space in link above
By: Alex the old wrinkled retainer
Date Joined: 07 Aug 06 Add contact | Send message
When: 03 Feb 12 09:43 Joined: Date Joined: 07 Aug 06 | Topic/replies: 19,274 | Blogger: Alex the old wrinkled retainer's blog
Feb 3, 2012 -- 9:02AM, DOUBLED wrote:
Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end of
Are you a tax expert please?
Not a tax expert - just know the law - thanks for your interest
Date Joined: 07 Aug 06 Add contact | Send message
When: 03 Feb 12 09:43 Joined: Date Joined: 07 Aug 06 | Topic/replies: 19,274 | Blogger: Alex the old wrinkled retainer's blog
Feb 3, 2012 -- 9:02AM, DOUBLED wrote:
Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end of
Are you a tax expert please?
Not a tax expert - just know the law - thanks for your interest
Feb 4, 2012 -- 4:14AM, DOUBLED wrote:
By: Alex the old wrinkled retainer Date Joined: 07 Aug 06 Add contact | Send message When: 03 Feb 12 09:43 Joined: Date Joined: 07 Aug 06 | Topic/replies: 19,274 | Blogger: Alex the old wrinkled retainer's blog Feb 3, 2012 -- 9:02AM, DOUBLED wrote:Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end ofAre you a tax expert please? Not a tax expert - just know the law - thanks for your interest
You clearly don't.
As I have said to you many times before - please post details of an individual that has been made to pay income tax on his Betfair winnings - thanks in anticipation 
Feb 4, 2012 -- 7:49AM, DOUBLED wrote:
As I have said to you many times before - please post details of an individual that has been made to pay income tax on his Betfair winnings - thanks in anticipation
You are showing yourself up now.
tick tock ....tick tock...tick tock... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 4, 2012 -- 8:12AM, DOUBLED wrote:
tick tock ....tick tock...tick tock... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
dim.
come up with any examples yet ?
tick tock........tick tock..........tick tock...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
tick tock........tick tock..........tick tock...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The name of the individual paying income tax is..................
Tick tock...Tick tock...Tick tock.............
Tick tock...Tick tock...Tick tock.............
A little reminder....
DOUBLED
Date Joined: 15 Feb 03
Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end of
DOUBLED
Date Joined: 15 Feb 03
Please ignore the rubbish from Alex - Betfair winnings by an individual are not subject to income tax - end of
Tick tock .................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I complete a tax return each year fully declaring my "income" from here, they have never been the slightest bit interested in it.
I have also explained in considerable detail how I operate including betting volumes, stakes, commission paid, etc etc. Again, not interested.
I think it's safe to say that currently it isn't considered taxable income.
I have also explained in considerable detail how I operate including betting volumes, stakes, commission paid, etc etc. Again, not interested.
I think it's safe to say that currently it isn't considered taxable income.
That clock will continue to tick Doubled, as you are indeed correct
Winnings ARE NOT taxable.
Things CAN change if it is your ONLY income you live off and earned after systematic, repeated and planned actions.
Or something like that.
So don't worry guys.
There are no winners here ! 
Things CAN change if it is your ONLY income you live off and earned after systematic, repeated and planned actions.
Or something like that.
So don't worry guys.
There are no winners here !
Thanks for the link Investor, very interesting so far... quite a lot to read so will get back to.
Just to try and clear things up, as far as I understand it, if betting was taxable it would fall under Capital Gains Tax NOT Income Tax for the sole reason you make the bet and possibly get a capital gain on bet completion. There is thus, no need to declare betting profits to hmrc in your self assessments because according to them (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/intro/when-to-pay.htm):
Exempt assets - when you don't pay Capital Gains Tax
Some assets aren't liable to Capital Gains Tax at all because they’re exempt. These include:
• your car
• personal possessions worth up to £6,000 each, such as jewellery, paintings or antiques
• stocks and shares you hold in tax-free investment savings accounts, such as ISAs and PEPs
• UK Government or 'gilt-edged' securities, for example, National Savings Certificates, Premium Bonds and loan stock issued by the Treasury
• betting, lottery or pools winnings
...
The grey area imo, is when somebody is betting for a living as per my last posts... this may be thought of as Income Taxable, however the difficulty here is what the difference between a high volume bettor and a "make a living" bettor is. For example, somebody who has saved say £100k in their normal job (paid taxes on) and wants to take off a few years from their job, may for example win another £500k over the course of say 5 years sports betting... they have not made this money for a living - they could be considered just a high volume gambler, just betting like everybody else; bit of a grey area. However, the study by the inland revenue on whether overall exchange winners should be taxed (Dec 2005) said "there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as
running a business". If they had decided they had wanted to tax the overall winners, they would I am sure, request data from betfair to identify such users using met criteria. What do others think?
I have not read anywhere where somebody has been prosecuted for not paying betting taxes (in the uk) since the betting tax was abolised. Maybe somebody else has? If so, please tell and provide proof - news story link etc...?
Just to try and clear things up, as far as I understand it, if betting was taxable it would fall under Capital Gains Tax NOT Income Tax for the sole reason you make the bet and possibly get a capital gain on bet completion. There is thus, no need to declare betting profits to hmrc in your self assessments because according to them (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/intro/when-to-pay.htm):
Exempt assets - when you don't pay Capital Gains Tax
Some assets aren't liable to Capital Gains Tax at all because they’re exempt. These include:
• your car
• personal possessions worth up to £6,000 each, such as jewellery, paintings or antiques
• stocks and shares you hold in tax-free investment savings accounts, such as ISAs and PEPs
• UK Government or 'gilt-edged' securities, for example, National Savings Certificates, Premium Bonds and loan stock issued by the Treasury
• betting, lottery or pools winnings
...
The grey area imo, is when somebody is betting for a living as per my last posts... this may be thought of as Income Taxable, however the difficulty here is what the difference between a high volume bettor and a "make a living" bettor is. For example, somebody who has saved say £100k in their normal job (paid taxes on) and wants to take off a few years from their job, may for example win another £500k over the course of say 5 years sports betting... they have not made this money for a living - they could be considered just a high volume gambler, just betting like everybody else; bit of a grey area. However, the study by the inland revenue on whether overall exchange winners should be taxed (Dec 2005) said "there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as
running a business". If they had decided they had wanted to tax the overall winners, they would I am sure, request data from betfair to identify such users using met criteria. What do others think?
I have not read anywhere where somebody has been prosecuted for not paying betting taxes (in the uk) since the betting tax was abolised. Maybe somebody else has? If so, please tell and provide proof - news story link etc...?
It's not just Betfair though - there will be many winners on here who are not winners from their betting overall.
Yes, good point, TheVis.
This reminded me, what I failed to mention was when I say "make a living from" I use this interchangeably with the phrase "persons who are in business on the betting exchanges". I think the betfair documents which I mentioned earlier prove that a user is not in business...as it is betfair doing the bookmaking. This important point is what suggests that the overall winners should be treated no differently to the non-winners; The tax gets paid through our commission.
This reminded me, what I failed to mention was when I say "make a living from" I use this interchangeably with the phrase "persons who are in business on the betting exchanges". I think the betfair documents which I mentioned earlier prove that a user is not in business...as it is betfair doing the bookmaking. This important point is what suggests that the overall winners should be treated no differently to the non-winners; The tax gets paid through our commission.
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 :/
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 :/
Cat...why do you bother to waste your time declaring it on your tax return if they are not interested?
That's strange. Your last post didn't appear for some reason.
PS If I was you I wouldn't declare it at all. You never know...the taxman may decide to tax all this retrospectively one day who knows
PS If I was you I wouldn't declare it at all. You never know...the taxman may decide to tax all this retrospectively one day who knows
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
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 ?
Is that the point ?
So then what happens if you have a profitable system ? eg trading ?
Alex is unduly trying to get people concerned about this issue. Clearly there is no issue as DOUBLED has said.
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.
Alex makes a good point. It's HMRC policy and not specific law which currently makes gambling profits tax free. There are many reasons they would not want to disturb the status quo such as not wanting to deal with people claiming losses.
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!
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!
btw... I don't believe I've ever disrespected you on this forum so please, show me the same courtesy. TIA
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.
Feb 6, 2012 -- 1:20PM, U.A. wrote:
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.
Spot on and yes UA.
This only really affects a small minority, any change in policy (and it would be a change in policy) is highly unlikely to be retrospective.
But I cannot leave this without commenting on Aspros comment:
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!
Financial adviser means that you sell insurance and pensions, Yes? I would love to discuss this more. We could go deal with many insurance and pension related products (tax and veracity) as well as the fundamentals of tax laws if you like. This could be fun.
30 years too Aspro.
Would you object if I call you Aspro the man from the Hambro?
You will have been around long enough to appreciate that.
Would you object if I call you Aspro the man from the Hambro?
You will have been around long enough to appreciate that.
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
T
I
C
K
T
O
C
K
Some might say that you are showing yourself up to be a complete wally, Doubled.
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 ;)
It all depends on how you are betting.........There are certain circumstances where HMR&C will treat transactions as "TAXABLE INCOME".....Just ask the ones who have been caught out by their method of gambling....
A forumite with "HARRY" in name was involved in such a case DOUBLED ....but cannot remeber his BF name........Perhaps they might post this fact on this thread....
A forumite with "HARRY" in name was involved in such a case DOUBLED ....but cannot remeber his BF name........Perhaps they might post this fact on this thread....
Guilty. It cost me £6000 for 2002/2004 winnings (reduced from £15,000). However, as I was sponsored and not risking my own money I was deemed to have earned 'commission' and NOT taxed for gambling winnings, as such.
All sponsored poker players are subject to the same ruling. Anyone who has their entry fees paid for by a sponsor, or anyone who is staked by a third party is liable for tax. e.g. Badbeat Poker say on their website that they are currently staking 350 players, so that's 350 people who should be declaring income on their tax returns!
All sponsored poker players are subject to the same ruling. Anyone who has their entry fees paid for by a sponsor, or anyone who is staked by a third party is liable for tax. e.g. Badbeat Poker say on their website that they are currently staking 350 players, so that's 350 people who should be declaring income on their tax returns!
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 ?
crazy!
How about all those 'odds to' middlemen ? eg they take your betting bank and bet for you ?
cant see that working - can you ?
No Lex, your friend would pay tax if you split the winnings with them in some way in return for placing the bet.
How would the amount you win be worked out? Do they only include winnings on betfair, including wins/losses from their casino or whatever they have. Or do they also include winnings/losses from other betting exchanges? What about bookies? What about scratch cards, fruit machines, playing poker with your mates etc?
Presumably just about everyone will not have a clue about how much they win or lose. So perhaps they would only go by what you win on betfair. However that would be extraordinarily unfair if you lose say, more on fruit machines, than what you win on here! It would have to be total profits from ALL your gambling. But no one is going to know that figure.
Presumably just about everyone will not have a clue about how much they win or lose. So perhaps they would only go by what you win on betfair. However that would be extraordinarily unfair if you lose say, more on fruit machines, than what you win on here! It would have to be total profits from ALL your gambling. But no one is going to know that figure.
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.
BANKS may well be showing IMPROVED P & L a/cs....but they are CUTTING JOBS/ selling proerties....and reducing their RETAIL OUTLETS etc ...any ape could do that .....Does not deserve the level of BONUS that any asset stripper could achieve without too much bother........
CUTTING costs should have been carried out 3/4 decades ago.....
CUTTING costs should have been carried out 3/4 decades ago.....
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.
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.
Cosmic Horizon 09 Feb 12 17:09
How would the amount you win be worked out? Do they only include winnings on betfair, including wins/losses from their casino or whatever they have.
_______________
Money won and lost in a casino ,on this sites casino,bookies ,lottery,track,bingo hall would simply not count .
Tax would only relate to sports betting exchanges (losses would be offset of course) - tax collection would not be possible otherwise
How would the amount you win be worked out? Do they only include winnings on betfair, including wins/losses from their casino or whatever they have.
_______________
Money won and lost in a casino ,on this sites casino,bookies ,lottery,track,bingo hall would simply not count .
Tax would only relate to sports betting exchanges (losses would be offset of course) - tax collection would not be possible otherwise
You imagine someone on here winning 100k a year only to provide 90k in losing betting slips ?
I've got a feeling more total lifetime taxes will be generated by keeping gambling winnings free of income tax.
Any views?
Any views?
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.
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.
Coachbuster
Money won and lost in a casino ,on this sites casino,bookies ,lottery,track,bingo hall would simply not count .
Tax would only relate to sports betting exchanges (losses would be offset of course) - tax collection would not be possible otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not bookies? Just when you bet on sport on betting exchanges?
I'm not sure they would do that because you could easily be a heavy loser overall in your betting. The purpose of a tax would be to obtain money off people who are up overall in their betting. I doubt they would be unreasonable.
Money won and lost in a casino ,on this sites casino,bookies ,lottery,track,bingo hall would simply not count .
Tax would only relate to sports betting exchanges (losses would be offset of course) - tax collection would not be possible otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not bookies? Just when you bet on sport on betting exchanges?
I'm not sure they would do that because you could easily be a heavy loser overall in your betting. The purpose of a tax would be to obtain money off people who are up overall in their betting. I doubt they would be unreasonable.
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 ? )
All depends on the method of putting bets on.....
EG ....a professional may have people placing bets on in BOOKIES......then they have to be very very careful on the arrangement they have with person placing bets.
What is paid to the person placing bets could be deemed FEES.....so person placing bets could be open to being providing a "service" ....which they are rewarded for etc etc
EG ....a professional may have people placing bets on in BOOKIES......then they have to be very very careful on the arrangement they have with person placing bets.
What is paid to the person placing bets could be deemed FEES.....so person placing bets could be open to being providing a "service" ....which they are rewarded for etc etc
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
Trevh
Date Joined: 21 Jul 06
Add contact | Send message
When: 12 Feb 12 01:51
Joined:
Date Joined: 21 Jul 06
| Topic/replies: 1,435 | Blogger: Trevh's blog
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.
And that leaves out the fact that private banks are allowed create money, so £1billion in deposits could lead to £10billion in loans.
It doesn't really make sense to me that money created out of thin air does not come with a massive tax on the profits made by this. It's like running a state lottery: if you're given an easy way to make money, it should come with a big tax rate to compensate.
If government is going to bail out banks when it goes pear shaped, they should pay a mandatory 'insurance premium', rather than getting this for nothing at the expense of everyone else.
It probably won't happen though. This will probably all blow over and everything will go back to the way it was.
Date Joined: 21 Jul 06
Add contact | Send message
When: 12 Feb 12 01:51
Joined:
Date Joined: 21 Jul 06
| Topic/replies: 1,435 | Blogger: Trevh's blog
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.
And that leaves out the fact that private banks are allowed create money, so £1billion in deposits could lead to £10billion in loans.
It doesn't really make sense to me that money created out of thin air does not come with a massive tax on the profits made by this. It's like running a state lottery: if you're given an easy way to make money, it should come with a big tax rate to compensate.
If government is going to bail out banks when it goes pear shaped, they should pay a mandatory 'insurance premium', rather than getting this for nothing at the expense of everyone else.
It probably won't happen though. This will probably all blow over and everything will go back to the way it was.
tax only paid on betfair winnings - dream scenario for parasites like me 
anyone want to buy some losses?
anyone want to buy some losses?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539