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?
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 .
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.
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 :-)
Author