Matt Chapman Big News

An educated one interspersed with a lifetime in horse racing,Aceform

The education didn't stretch to manners

People are treated as they behave,Cider

Another load of P…

formoftheace • January 23, 2026 9:20 PM GMT
Another load of P…

I rest my case

It's reasonable to anticipate others getting a bit upset when 'stars' appear to get away with £100K+ tax liabilities, when they are always paying their own council tax liabilities etc. It's easy to see why the perception of unfairness is a natural reaction. There's not enough info in the public domain to know exactly what went on here, whilst it does smell of another them and us scenario. Calling someone questioning the morality of it, a 'clueless gullible moron' isn't really helpful.

It might not be helpful but it most certainly is factual

It doesn't do you any favours (imho)

I don't know if it's the case, however if you do actually possess some financial technical knowhow, perhaps use it positively and share some knowledge in a positive way. Just my opinion.

A couple of BOOMS and HMRC will receive payment.

Trying to educate Aceform is a fruitless pursuit

Iron….everything that you spew is totally irrelevant……

As I said.
Goodnight

He's finished,credibility gone unless he pays  his creditors. No way can this man ever come back on the telly
and give an honest opinion on the integrity of horse racing.

Irons, straight out of the Donald Trump school of Diplomacy.!

But,absolutely factual,Glasgow

Ironic it was him informing the audience about FDs tax scams last week.

Is he scheduled to appear on ITV Tomorrow. ??

But,absolutely factual,Glasgow

..... Iam sure he thinks the same.

Find fault in what I have stated,Glasgow

How does ITV Racing sack him mmmalushka?  His failings are civil not professional.

Indeed they are,Honcho

Is he barred from being a director of a LTD company for the foreseeable? Otherwise open up another rinse and repeat. Surely hes just a self employed sole trader offering his freelance services, with a creative accountant.

We all know what a Limited Company is and why many self-employed people use them but it doesn't make it right to just walk away from it when it goes tits-up and move on to the next one and start again and especially in the eyes of people only on PAYE

Looks like he already has set up another company. So what stops him fleecing the Company and doing the same all over again?

Nothing whatsoever,geoff.
These people have no shame

When the going gets tough etc., etc.,.......

I expect that he was originally slated to host the program but he has been hastily dispatched to the racecourse stables in order to avoid any 'off topic' conversations.

And to think they put Lester in jail !

or avoid Ruby putting the boot in.

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

Sets up another Phoenix company.No ethics zero integrity.

"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.

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

     

Chapman's character has not changed but knows that he cannot afford to owe Bookmakers for obvious reasons

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.
The reason that Chapman or any other TV Racing employee cannot afford to knock Bookmakers is they could be "warned off the Course" and therefore be unemployable

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


Of course they can't.

It's highly unlikely there is any running up of large credit facilities in the current era.

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.

This is what happens if you try the, how's it go now,  "booooooooom" or bust route.

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.

When Can Gambling Income Become Taxable?
Although casual gambling profits aren’t taxed, you might cross into taxable territory if your gambling:

Is structured as a trade or business

Is your main or only source of income

Involves systems, strategies, or staking plans

Includes professional activities like poker, matched betting, or arbitrage

In such cases, HMRC may deem your activity as “trading”, in which case you may be liable for Income Tax or even required to register as self-employed.

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.

irons talked about income from employment.

if someone can show me an example where an individual has reduced their tax bill from employment due to gambling losses, I'd love to see it.

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.

Yeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

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.

That does not mean that the option does not exist under certain circumstances.

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).

loper • January 24, 2026 11:51 AM GMT
When Can Gambling Income Become Taxable?
Although casual gambling profits aren’t taxed, you might cross into taxable territory if your gambling:

Is structured as a trade or business correct

Is your main or only source of income incorrect

Involves systems, strategies, or staking plans incorrect

Includes professional activities like poker, matched betting, or arbitrage incorrect

In such cases, HMRC may deem your activity as “trading”, in which case you may be liable for Income Tax or even required to register as self-employed.

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.

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 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.

Dave, you are not listening.

I can assure I had detailed correspondence with the tax authorities in the past and hired an experience lawyer in tax law plus spending days in a reference library studying the subject for myself.

So please don't diss me, I know what I am talking about.

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.

So please don't diss me, I know what I am talking about.

Sorry you feel dissed, but if you talk nonsense you get dissed. You said in your post that if gambling was your main source of income it was taxable - first class rubbish, you said that a pro poker player's income was taxable - first class rubbish.

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.

loper • January 24, 2026 11:51 AM GMT
When Can Gambling Income Become Taxable?
Although casual gambling profits aren’t taxed, you might cross into taxable territory if your gambling:

Is structured as a trade or business

Is your main or only source of income

Involves systems, strategies, or staking plans

Includes professional activities like poker, matched betting, or arbitrage

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.

I should imagine it would have to be on a huge scale to prove

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.

Still on ITV, still on PP, if the bloke had any shame he'd pay his debts.

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

I'm sure he's not living in a cardboard box. He wears new gear every day.

I didn't say sack him. Although I would, but more because he's an incredibly irritating egotist.

Enzo will be in a sweat. Chapman will be after more shifts now.

I think you’re all right.

JOHN BARNES on THE OVERLAP pod this week, spent the last yrs 10 yrs paying back over 2 million in owed tax due to investments going belly up,then missed last yrs payment and HMRC made him go bank rupt anyway which he could have done 10 yrs ago and saved 2 M, but said he couldnt have faced people if he hadnt attempted to pay it back

I think Chapman should have fronted it up and made a statement of what business he was in and why he is in the situation he is in.

This would end any speculation of what may or may not have happened if it may be do with with a property company a car hire firm who knows?

If he is to remain on t.v.discussing horses jockeys horse or indeed anything to do with racing the viewers should be informed of the facts of the matter and obviously if it transpires it was not really his fault he would enjoy public and the horse racing fraternity's sympathy but if it is  some scam involving horse racing in any way he should be looking for another job.

Take the example of bookie Gary Wiltshire after he lost around £1.4 million on 28th Sept 1996 when Dettori rode 7 winners.

Gary had meetings with the high street bookmakers he owed money to and came to an agreement to pay back every penny his house went his cars went but he paid back every penny and obviously he can hold his head high on any racecourse.

He would not be allowed to take advantage of the programme in that way.  That would certainly open the door to disciplinary action, were wet/woke/wimpy Chamberlin and his idol Brough Scott so inclined.  Surely, if he has broken any law the law will catch up with him?

love of money is the root of all evil

Chapman is a reincarnation of McFatso whilst being far brighter.
Self promotion is essential and he soon realised that.
That he owed the Books plenty is a fact in the past.
I have no idea about the current matter but wouldn't trust him full stop

surely he must have explained his position to his television bosses so why many who may follow the tv channel are kept in the dark.

if it's nothing to do with horse racing fine we move on .

If it is however something untoward to do with our sport we love and enjoy why should someone with the privileges and contacts he must have be not to be able to just carry on as if is ok for them in some position above the rest of us just crack  do what they want on carry on and f*** the rest of us.

The bottom line is the taxpayers i.e you and me pick up the tab

I agree with all of your sentiment but using the show as a vehicle to tell ( or explain ) his story.is not in his prerogative.  He could though find a way to do so were he so inclined through some element of the Press. 
I remember many years ago Jan Leeming the BBC Newsreader keeping ten or fifteen seconds of her NEWS readout to thank the public for all their kindnesses after she had been mugged.  With no permission or right to do so they whipped her off the screen pronto never to read the News again. If he loses his job through some indisciplinary issue like that nobody gains anything.  Do they?

Are you just thick as in the BF Court Kenneth or have you actually read the facts as known?

I know you are going to howl Honcho but maybe you should have taken time to read the known facts before getting into bed with Kenneth?

Where Chapman has a problem and what can make things awkward for him going forward is the fact that his whole schtick centres around being bombastic, loud, opinionated, noisy, he might find that he's Dancing on Ice continuing with that act.

So you are joining the Court of BF opinion duffy? Never mind any facts etc? But you all seem to know that he and his persona on TV have anything to do with the business that he is paying via an IVA for its debts?

Cag

His well respected lawyers have stated this is nothing to do with any wrong doing and nothing to do with horse racing or gambling.

So can you please enlighten us all as to the exact reason Matt is in the predicament he is then.

regards

No idea why his company is in the situation it is, unlike you spouting your mouth I did read that it was nothing to do with racing or gambling according to his legal reps!!!

So perhaps enlighten us why you were shooting your mouth off about racing and gambling?

BTW starring yourself for a dopey post is just..........DOPEY!!

Cag
And of course once again the taxpayers are the ones losing out.No arguments with that?

Are you deflecting from the FACT that he has taken responsibility and is paying via an IVA or would you prefer Bankruptcy?

Cag I am not deflecting from nothing.

The facts as you and I have probably read state Grey Line 12 was a limited company was established as Matt Chapman racing Ltd in 2017.

And as we are all aware Matt Chapman works on horse racing television shows and his lawyers are able to state this is nothing to do with horse racing or gambling who are we to believe?

It is not possible to deflect from nothing Kenneth unless you believe a double negative is a positive which it probably is in your world?

This Forum has too many of your ilk that happily pile into deriding individuals whether public figures or just posters on here without any facts or information.

Matt Chapman has as much right as anyone to privacy outside his employment, a shame that a lot on here think they have a right to intrude when they know they would be howling if it happened to them?

You can review some of the accounts that were submitted, if you are interested kenneth.

One line of note, perhaps..

There was one director ;)

There was a £50K bb loan in fy2021 it appears. Well, it would be quite a coincidence if it wasn't a bb loan

Curiously enough, aside from hmrc I can only see less than £50K liability as at April end 2023. And £160K reserves with nothing in the bank.

Cagliari - total fruitcake.

cag
Not interested in your double negative nonsense.

One of the major drawbacks of being  royalty, a politician or a well known sportsman or a t.v.presenter is almost every move they make be it being filmed on a beach whilst on holiday family feuds such as the Beckham's of the Gordon Ramsay family or financial matters will be reported and commented on.

Every member of the current itv racing team and those at RUK at some time would receive comments on this and other websites whether its some hat they are wearing or some selection they have made and in the case of Mick Fitz even his accent gets negative comments.

He has every right to instruct one of the leading (and costly) law firms to assist him but for them to suggest its all got nothing to do with horse racing but fail to mention any possible other causes will lead to speculation

The date of the IVA is 13/6/2025 according to the Insolvency website. The website does not tell you what percentage of the debt is written off. I believe it can be up to 80% so he repays at least 20% of the original debt. This is usually done with monthly repayments over 5 years.
On the AK podcast yesterday Stewart Moore more or less said nothing to see here and he gave the impression that Matt would be repaying his debts, He did not mention that 80% of the debt could be written off

For how long will he retain his job with ITV racing?

Yes why would the sole director of a company loan themselves nearly half a million in a company they are the only shareholder of. Nothing to see here, the mind boggles :)

From the info in the public domain it appears that the business has folded due to a huge bad debt. And that huge bad debt is an accumulating loan to the only director, the director that owns the business.

Now why would you loan yourself funds from a business that you own all of the capital/equity of, and all the dividends go to you. The only mention of an interest rate is that 2% one in the Note that I have put on the thread.

Re the IVA, very much depends. The majority of creditors need to agree to it, but the detail is down to the OR. Reasonable allowances et al, and windfalls as such could be swallowed up.

From early submissions pretty soon after incorporation, it can be seen from the CT liability that profitability of the business was strong. But the DL had already began accumulating.

if only he'd laid all his tips on 415 tonight could have paid half of it off

With a profit

gambling your way out of (gambling) debts is rarely the solution, an IVA is the way.

an iva is golden for the debtor

you pay a small fraction back and are given a golden ticket when you pay it off

not fair on creditors imeo