General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Been full-time on here for 10 yrs and never had any contact with the Inland Rev and have now become aware that me and the family may be eligible for tax credits because as far as the taxman is concerned i have zero income.But concerned about contacting the IR as could open a can of worms even though i have done nothing wrong.My wife does not work and we have 2 kids. Also have a full set of chartered accounts for my time on here. Any thoughts...
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 105
|
By:
I thought that only working families qualified.
|
|
By:
No you get child tax credits based on your overall income and you are eligible from what you have said. Don't know what can of worms you are worried about, you should just apply, unless there is something dodgy that you are worried them finding about.
|
|
By:
nothing dodgy i am the most honest guy on this earth...but also worried about getting stung for a nat. insurance bill for the past 10 yrs as my wife thinks i should have been paying some sort of NI STAMP
|
|
By:
NI is optional if you do this full time
|
|
By:
U.A. is correct.
How you complete the "other income" section of the form will be intresting. |
|
By:
phone them and tell them you gamble for a living they will put you down as not working, this way you dont have to worry
|
|
By:
NI is optional unless you are registered as self-employed in which case you pay voluntary contributions, it's around £130 a year now. It keeps you in the system!
|
|
By:
Thanks guys very helpful..any other thoughts appreciated
|
|
By:
Have you asked your accountant for his opinion on this ? I wouldn't approach the IR without advice from a shrewd accountant.Better to say you've been "lucky" and won money from gambling rather than you gamble "for a living".You don't want to set any precedents,or give any ambitious taxman any ideas !
|
|
By:
If I was in your situation I wouldn't bother. Claiming would involve means testing and even though you probably would qualify you never know how regulations may change in this age when Govt are looking to make cutbacks any way they can.
|
|
By:
I have income. My wife has income.
Because I moved here eleven years ago and have my own business, I was careful to research everything since I wanted to build proper credit, etc, and relationships with my bank. Gambling 'revenue': from betting, it is not considered income. unless - you earn it through consultation at which point you declare it as 'other' income. - you receive 'credits' from bookmakers for services rendered. If the government were to declare income from gambling taxable, they would then have to declare that losses were able to be deducted from your revenue. The expression 'can of worms' comes to mind. |
|
By:
CHATTER BOX
claim it there will be no problems - your earned taxable income is nil - tell em no more.. |
|
By:
thin and crispy - no means testing on tax credits
|
|
By:
Yep, Delta is correct, you can either just claim it and get an extra £450ish a month, or worry endlessly about ifs and buts, not do it and get nothing.
You're not even doing anything wrong in claiming. |
|
By:
Yep, Delta is correct, you can either just claim it and get an extra £450ish a month, or worry endlessly about ifs and buts, not do it and get nothing.
You're not even doing anything wrong in claiming. |
|
By:
Sorry for duplicate, i blame my computer.
|
|
By:
thin and crispy - no means testing on tax credits
So if you say I have no income they never ask for proof eg Bank Statements etc they never bother to check,just take your word for it and dole out the money? |
|
By:
^ sorry T & C - I meant no means testing as in u could have 100k in savings etc..
they know ur earned [taxable] income from the tax system |
|
By:
Think you have to work at least 16 hours a week to get tax credits - gambling isnt work
|
|
By:
^^^^
I believe its at least 24 hours jointly if you are a couple with one of you working at least 16. |
|
By:
he would be claiming child tax credit - which has no requirement of hours worked
|
|
By:
the hours mentioned above are for working tax credit
|
|
By:
yeah that seems right I looked it up - bit of a scam, but as long as the elites in our country avoid paying there fair share, then gl to OP imo
|
|
By:
There is a school of thought within HMRC that someone who derives their income from gambling is in fact engaged in an occupation and that that income should therefore be taxable.
I don't know if they've tried to argue this before a tribunal, but my friend is a tax consultant so I'll ask him about it. |
|
By:
"There is a school of thought within HMRC......".How do you know this ?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
@artie:
From my tax consultant friend. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim22015.htm
|
|
By:
if you want to read HMRCs guidance on the subject
|
|
By:
That ^ seems to sum things up quite clearly.
|
|
By:
BIM22015 - Trade: Exceptions & alternatives: Betting and gambling - introduction
The basic position is that betting and gambling, as such, do not constitute trading. Rowlatt J said in Graham v Green [1925] 9TC309: A bet is merely an irrational agreement that one person should pay another person on the happening of an event. This decision has stood the test of time. In an Australian case, Evans v FCT [1989] 20ATR922, 89ATC4540 Hill J said: There has been no decision of a court in Australia nor, so far as I am aware, in the United Kingdom where it has been held that a mere punter was carrying on a business. However, an organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading. Although over time new forms of games of chance have evolved, these principles remain the same. The taxpayer placing a spread bet is not normally carrying on a trade (see BIM22020 for exceptions). They are not taxable on the profits, nor do they receive relief for their losses. The bookmaker organising the spread bet is taxable on their profits. The section on betting and gambling contains the following further guidance: what is a bet - BIM22016, the professional gambler - BIM22017, organised activity - BIM22018, element of existing trade - BIM22019, spread betting - BIM22020. ====================================================================================== BIM22018 - Trade: Exceptions & alternatives: Betting and gambling - organised activity An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading. An example of this is the bookmaker. In Partridge v Mallandaine [1886] 2TC179 a professional bookmaker systematically attended racecourses for the purpose of carrying on that activity; he could not legally recover amounts due to him. He was held to be carrying on a vocation and hence assessable to what was then Schedule D, Case II. Rowlatt J explained the position in Graham v Green [1925] 9TC309 at page 313: It has been settled that a bookmaker carries on a taxable vocation. What is the bookmaker's system? He knows that there are a great many people who are willing to back horses and that they will back horses with anybody who holds himself out to give reasonable odds as a bookmaker. By 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… are in his favour, he makes a profit. That seems to me to be organising an effort in the same way that a person organises an effort if he sets out to buy himself things with a view to securing a profit by the difference in what I may call their capital value in individual cases. Bookmakers may themselves place bets. Where this is done as part of the trade (“laying off”), the proceeds or losses have to be taken into account in arriving at their profit. The key feature is that the taxpayer is likely to be involved in the organisation of the activity. They are not mere punters. They are carrying on an activity where the odds are in their favour. ============================================================================================= Last paragraph still keeps the "can of worms" possible......IF you have a system where "value" is consistently identified and regular profits are made. However, it is implied from the above that "TRADING" would be HMR&Cs main target, other than Bookmakers,.....as opposed to straight bets BACK or LAY........Well that is how I interpret the above. |
|
By:
just for the avoidance of doubt, when they talk about 'trade' and 'trading', they aren't talking about backing high and laying low
they are talking about 'having a trade', eg a plumber, builder etc who carries out a professional trade |
|
By:
Bookmakers may themselves place bets. Where this is done as part of the trade (“laying off”), the proceeds or losses have to be taken into account in arriving at their profit.
Above implies differently SV..... |
|
By:
and one other 'trick' that means they don't want to cast the net too wide, is that losses from a 'trade' are often offsettable against tax
and most gamblers are losers so HMRC could be losing revenue if they drag too many gamblers into this particular net |
|
By:
An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading.
================================================================== Presumably the way BF operates is one member of public against another/others.......so looks like this line covers BF type set up. |
|
By:
If , and it is true, that "most gamblers are losers", then such punters would not fall under the above "organised" ones making a PROFIT.....
SO HM R&C could just eek out net winners, above a certain figure to examine how they make money.Not an "easy" task......but the "can of worms" still appears to be there . |
|
By:
DFCIRONMAN 23 Dec 12 14:44
Above implies differently SV..... no it doesn't. this series of articles on betting is a subset of the series of articles entitled 'trade'. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM20000.htm that statement you highlighted refers to people placing bets who have already been identified as having a professional gambling 'trade' eg bookies, casino operators etc, who then place bets which are related to their 'trade' the key component remains whether they are identified as having a 'trade' in the first place |
|
By:
DFCIRONMAN 23 Dec 12 14:51
SO HM R&C could just eek out net winners yes they could. and then net losers could use the precedent created to claim for themselves. the law works both ways. its a can of worms, as you say, but for both sides. |