blonde poker forum

do pros have to pay tax on their poker winnings ? if they do it for a living are they taxed on it ? just wondered,i do mean in this country, not other countries.

simple answer, no

ok fair enough good luck to them i think thats fine m8,but if they do it as a job,it is a sport,and sports people have to pay tax,i dont want poker players to pay tax but do you think they should?

not yet! the Gutshot court case might change this.......open to debate....

only if they can offset losing buy in's against their tax bill..thats why the treasury won't do it, adminsitrative complexity

this is why gambling winnings are tax exempt...they used to tax bets at source but abolished it

ok ok im so thick do laddies pay tax then ?example .

Game of skill are taxed, games of chance are exempt.

wow
roullette ?
blackjack ?
horse racing ?
i suppose a lot of things like this are very close to skill and chance ?ive allways wondered thnx for any ideas ..

That's not true, if a couple of golfers or chess players have a bet then the winner is not taxed.

What about sponsored players? If someone is getting say $100K tourney entries for wearing a shirt, being nice to some online qualifiers and doing some promotional stuff is he taxed on it?

Interesting point. In a case like that I see no reason why they shouldn't, what actually happens is probably very different. I dont see why somebody who chooses to gamble for a living should pay tax, free healthcare, defence etc etc- like tightend says I wouldnt fancy being the one who has to decide how!

How many pro's actually make a liveable wage purely out of poker? IIRC Julian in his blog says if he wasn't sponsored he would have made only a small amount this year and he ran super hot for a long while, every week on 425 tikay used to say another 5 figure week for Julian. His small amount might well be a fortune to you or I of course.

But seriously a few hundred people? Is it worth the time and effort to make new laws?

I wrote this a while ago...

http://www.thehendonmob.com/Articles/poker_and_the_taxman.html

most of it still applies...

thanks joe that makes it a bit clearer......

Yep laddies do pay tax, as do any other uk registered bookie. Previously betting was taxed up front, at a rate of 10%, this was reduced to 9% before finally being abolished.
Negotiations around this abolishment was that the gaming companies would pay a 'tax' on their profits to cover this betting duty.
Volumes gambled have since trebled, creating vast increases in profits for the companies, and additional taxation revenue for the Government.
It has also made it more attractive for gamblers, with no upfront betting duty to pay. Has also made certain bets more attractive i.e short priced ones, as the profit margins, once betting duty has been applied, was very small.

At present poker players/gamblers etc do not pay taxation. Mainly because there are too many losers in the gambling arena, and the Government would lose money, in the taxable deductions that would be allowed.

This MAY change for poker players, once the outcome of the Gutshot court case is known.

The government wouldnt lose money - if they allowed relief from losses they would only allow the relief down to 0 where no tax would be payable.

Vegaslover I'm sorry but your understanding of a few of these issues is incorrect. I say issues because you have mixed a few different things together. Paying tax on poker winnings is something often asked about and is asked in relation to tax on winnings (or earnings if you like). The 10% / 9% 'betting tax' was totally different. That was a tax on stakes (or returns if a punter preferred) but is nothing to do with 'making a profit'. The 'betting tax' was more akin to stamp duty when you buy a house.

You are correct that 'betting tax' or 'betting duty' made backing short priced events a bad proposition. In fact the 10% betting tax was almost impossible to beat.

The reason why poker players do not pay tax in the UK is because the revenue recognise and their guidelines state that a trade must be taking place, ie the person must be 'organising an effort'. A cardroom organsies an effort by supplying cards, chips, a place to play and players. A player does not 'organise an effort'. A bookmaker organises an effort and is systematic. His winnings are taxed as are the cardrooms. You could say that the bookmaker is gambling but the revenue would argue he is not - hence organising an effort. If however you ran a card club and proped the game ie played in it to make it happen, then any winnings in that game would be taxable as it would be deemed part of the trade or business.

IMO the Gutshot case is nothing to do with players winning at poker per se it is to do with (possible) breaches of the Gaming Act. It will make no differene to the revenues stance on taxing professional gamblers other than they might recognise that the industry has changed some in the last few years. Betting exchanges, online poker sites and online sportsbooks were not around when certain cases in law were heard. Things could change in the future as anything could though.

These are my personal opinions and should not be necessarily relied upon :-)

While I generally agree with the rest of your comments, the Gutshot case has no relevance.  Read the excellent Hendon Mob article and you will see why.

So they won't pay me for losing then?? ;flushy;

tfft

tax?????

i hardly know anyone who pays tax, why should poker players???

I suppose we pay VAT and local council council tax.