And to think they put Lester in jail !

Lester was correctly convicted,Chapman has broken no Laws,afterthought.

"Owes Everybody": During the outburst, Curley claimed that "that Chapman... owes everybody" and criticized him for calling out bookmaker prices.


That was 2005, 20 yrs later nothing seems to have changed, has he no shame.??

He's probably paid more tax than anyone on this fred.

     

At least gambling winnings are  not targeted by HRMC.

However, strictly speaking in law they are, in Chapman's case and all others who's employment makes them 'insiders' within the gambling industry. But the potential to declare gambling losses against general income makes an arse of the law and discourages HRMC from pursuing this avenue.

I don't think that Gambling losses can be offset against Income from employment.


Of course they can't.

Quite possibly he was sued or something along those lines, and there was an out of court settlement. From what I recall he used to be quite vocal in regard to alleging non jiggery.

Gambling profits can be taxed when you die if you have enough but not sure that will be a problem for Matt (how loud can you shout) Chapman. I hope that ITV quietly drop him.

There must be some money tucked away somewhere as the Lawyers he has instructed Mishon De Reya are not known for being the cheapest option.

Why, when they are employed on the inside would those who expect to profit from their betting want to declare themselves to the HRMC?

The extra burden and scrutiny placed on their financial affairs would be soul destroying. One also assumes that they wouldn't like their gambling profits subject to taxation.

I suggest you go back in time and look at the cases that acted as precedent that shaped the gambling laws as they sit in place today.

This has been covered on other threads, one reason why people create limited cos to channel personal revenue through is to avoid personal liability.

I'm not aware of any examples of reducing tax liabilities from employment by offsetting them against gambling losses.

I don't believe it does. If revenue is going through a limited company, it's not income from employment. Of course 'MC services ltd' could employ MC to carry out some services, but that would then be subject to the standard payroll reporting legislation, paye et al. If MC has losses dues to gambling, it's nothing to do with the income they get from being employed by MC services ltd (or any tax liability derived from that income).

I suggest you go back to around 1925 when the precedents for gambling and the law were set. I can't be arsed to walk you through it, but the High Court case of (I think) Greene vs Greene around that time set the case as it still stands for the HMRC to  interpret as it sees fit.

It declared that betting against the house was an irrational act and therefore untaxable s it can't be judged to be profitable. It also declared that the casino owner who won money on his own tables had to be taxed on his winnings because gambling was part of his business/employment.

  I can't be arsed to walk you through it

good because you obviously don't understand it. The whole point of the precedent is that an individual simply gambling isn't a trade, profession, or vocation. Doesn't matter how much he wins or how he does it. Meaning the examples provided in your post are irrelevant.

CagliariG 24 Jan 26 13:17 
As usual the Court of the BF Forum ignore Facts i.e He has not walked away and is up to date with his payments to creditors as per his IVA!! HTH


I was going to ask whether or not it had been overlooked the fact that he is making repayments via an IVA, although a large chunk will get written off eventually, would be interesting to know how much repayments he's paying.

I think you need to reread this thread Dave, because I said nothing of the sort.

Please do it before you burst a blood vessel.

you might cross into taxable territory. Might being the operative word. The HMRC have a number of options at their disposal if they so choose. The impracticability of many means that they decide not to pursue them.

A case in point being those that are employed in horse racing are not required to declare their gambling winnings. That does not mean that the power to enforce the issue does not exist. It is more trouble than its worth to police and exposes HMRC to the potential for gambling losses to be used to offset taxes payable.

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] 9 TC 309 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 today and he plays tomorrow 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

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim22017

There isn't any "might" involved with those examples of poker, using systems and sole income. The only issue is whether your activity is a trade profession or vocation. There might indeed be some grey areas that you rightly speculate that hmrc cba and doesn't want to run the risk of relief on losses. But the examples in your post are either clearly wrong or irrelevant.

Interestingly though, and back on topic, the link above states:

   
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.

How can he pay his debts if you want him sacked from all his jobs?