A Taxing debate

[doubleup]

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

The FCA would be very very angry with that

[The Camel]

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

The FCA would be very very angry with that

Isn't this what Blatch was running?

Instead of calling the police maybe we should have called the FCA!

[AlunB]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.  My point is, and always has been, give me a system that you would propose to tax me as a professional gambler and not tax a £5m lottery winner/$10m wsop main event winner or a £2k lucky15 bink in the bookies on a saturday afternoon who you deem to be a recreational gambler.  I will then easily find a way around it with various loop holes which couldn't be challenged legally.  Which is why the govt chooses to continue the way it does.

OK. Quite simply this.

Is gambling your main source of income? If yes pay the tax. If no then happy days.

Sure that would lead to loads of people falsifying returns and getting part-time jobs they never go to, which would as far as I can see be classed as illegal.

I assume you would allow losses to be carried forward to offset against future profits?  All reasonable expenses would be deductable prior to your final taxable figure being reached? I assume you are proposing identical tax rules than if the said individual was running a standard compnay.  Why would getting a part time job to cover my basic living expenses be seen as illegal yet a guy could be signing on the dole/claiming benefits and win £100k and not be classed as illegal?  It's a minefield which occurs to so few people (there are not many professional gamblers around in the government's eyes) that it would cost much more to police than any tax revenue it would ever generate.  Similar to not means testing benefits for certain benefits because it would cost the government more money to carry out the tests than it would save by just making the benefit universal for all.  Professional gamblers are lucky i suppose in this way to not pay any income tax but i would add there are numerous downsides of the 'profession' which a lot of people don't consider.

In a brief answer to your question, yes. It would be treated like any other trade with the same tests applied to it. The onus is on the individual to prove he's not engaged in the trade of gambling, not the other way around.

[AlunB]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.  My point is, and always has been, give me a system that you would propose to tax me as a professional gambler and not tax a £5m lottery winner/$10m wsop main event winner or a £2k lucky15 bink in the bookies on a saturday afternoon who you deem to be a recreational gambler.  I will then easily find a way around it with various loop holes which couldn't be challenged legally.  Which is why the govt chooses to continue the way it does.

OK. Quite simply this.

Is gambling your main source of income? If yes pay the tax. If no then happy days.

Sure that would lead to loads of people falsifying returns and getting part-time jobs they never go to, which would as far as I can see be classed as illegal.

I assume you would allow losses to be carried forward to offset against future profits?  All reasonable expenses would be deductable prior to your final taxable figure being reached? I assume you are proposing identical tax rules than if the said individual was running a standard compnay.  Why would getting a part time job to cover my basic living expenses be seen as illegal yet a guy could be signing on the dole/claiming benefits and win £100k and not be classed as illegal?  It's a minefield which occurs to so few people (there are not many professional gamblers around in the government's eyes) that it would cost much more to police than any tax revenue it would ever generate.  Similar to not means testing benefits for certain benefits because it would cost the government more money to carry out the tests than it would save by just making the benefit universal for all.  Professional gamblers are lucky i suppose in this way to not pay any income tax but i would add there are numerous downsides of the 'profession' which a lot of people don't consider.

How would you tax a bet365 trader who earns £25k a year basic salary working for bet365 but makes £25k a year on top of his salary gambling in a consistent £2k a month flow month in month out for 10 years in a row?

Bet365 cleaner/tea lady who earns £10k a year basic salary but makes £10k a year betting following the traders in on their info?

bet365 trading director who earns £150k a year basic salary but makes £100k a year on top from his betting activities?

I think in all three of those examples they would arguably all be classed as self-employed income same as if they were renting a flat out on the side.

[Doobs]

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

The FCA would be very very angry with that

Probably would be, I have just checked and can't see him on the register now, but he was from 2002 to 2005.  That could easily have been for something else though, as he seems to have a lot of property interests.

I am going beyond my expertise, but don't know what rules would preclude gambling from pooled investment scheme rules.   I don't even know what he really does and who for either.

[AlunB]

Points re UK

Sports betting pros actually pay negative tax as their winnings mean that less gross profits tax is paid by the bookie

All poker players pay tax via the gross profits tax.  Many poker players would win if it wasn't for rake.  It is an undeniable economic fact that in a competitive market, rake could be lowered if the tax was lowered.

Points re world as a whole

Some countries simply have vindictive tax regimes where gambling is concerned.  They want to punish winners (and often losers).  They don't deserve any loyalty whatsoever and criticising refugees from persecution of this kind isn't fair.

Good post

[AlunB]

I think the problem si a lot of things either become unworkable or inequitable.  

I am starting a job on Monday for the first time in a while.  This puts me in a much better position for my gambling than I was before.  I don't need to carry a big bank, I can spend a bit more freely, and safely gamble bigger.  My earnings overall will be a lot better, and I wil find it much easier to pay any tax.  But I see here that people like the new me won't have to pay any gambling tax, but the old me would.  That seems really wrong to me.   Also over the last 10 or so years I have done many periods where I have been new me and old me in the same tax year.  What do I get taxed then?  I hav ehad losing gambling years as well as wining ones, if I can carry forward these losses, then why can't somebody less proficient?

If the new me has to pay gambling tax, then what about the fella who sits next to me with a FOBT addiction.  Why doesn't he get tax relief from the wretched things that the Government collects so much revenue from?  I also know a few people through my profession who gamble in serious size on poker, markets and sports.  I am fairly sure some of them have huge swings year by year.  Where are we taxing/offsetting losses with them?  It just becomes very messy when you start thinking about it.

I don't really see how you can charge someone tax if they have no earnings, that seems deeply wrong to me.  I can't see anyody introducing a flat rate tax of that size any time soon, it is like Poll Tax on steroids.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of effort to craft new laws for not much revenue.  I am guesisng there must be a big chance costsrevenue here.

Anyway genuine question, does anyone know if Tony Bloom pays tax?  I am guessing he must do given his activities, but am not entirely sure.

Seems more "deeply wrong" that the rest of society picks up the tab for the stuff pro gamblers are getting for nothing.

If you aren't making a profit over a year, perhaps you shouldn't be gambling for a living.

As for TB, I'd be very surprised if he pays tax on his betting profits.

He must pay income tax/NI on all of this employee's wages though as an absolute bare minimum?  Surely all his staff can't work tax free as they are not self employed gamblers but workers with a gtd income?

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

His website is here FWIW

http://www.starlizard.com/what-we-do.html

I really don't see why it would be so complicated the government couldn't do it. It just classifying gambling as a trade. Then as I say the onus is on the individual to prove he wasn't engaged in the trade of gambling. In the vast vast majority of cases that will be obvious to anyone. And yeah some people will cheat and bend the law, but that's hardly new. Look at what happens in many other trades

I downloaded star lizard accounts from Companies House the other day. Will try and dig them out. Not particularly illuminating, which suggests the gambling income is not subject to tax.

[AlunB]

Turns out I did so over a year ago.

Star Lizard made £270k profit from about £10.6m of turnover in 2012.

[Doobs]

I think the problem si a lot of things either become unworkable or inequitable.  

I am starting a job on Monday for the first time in a while.  This puts me in a much better position for my gambling than I was before.  I don't need to carry a big bank, I can spend a bit more freely, and safely gamble bigger.  My earnings overall will be a lot better, and I wil find it much easier to pay any tax.  But I see here that people like the new me won't have to pay any gambling tax, but the old me would.  That seems really wrong to me.   Also over the last 10 or so years I have done many periods where I have been new me and old me in the same tax year.  What do I get taxed then?  I hav ehad losing gambling years as well as wining ones, if I can carry forward these losses, then why can't somebody less proficient?

If the new me has to pay gambling tax, then what about the fella who sits next to me with a FOBT addiction.  Why doesn't he get tax relief from the wretched things that the Government collects so much revenue from?  I also know a few people through my profession who gamble in serious size on poker, markets and sports.  I am fairly sure some of them have huge swings year by year.  Where are we taxing/offsetting losses with them?  It just becomes very messy when you start thinking about it.

I don't really see how you can charge someone tax if they have no earnings, that seems deeply wrong to me.  I can't see anyody introducing a flat rate tax of that size any time soon, it is like Poll Tax on steroids.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of effort to craft new laws for not much revenue.  I am guesisng there must be a big chance costsrevenue here.

Anyway genuine question, does anyone know if Tony Bloom pays tax?  I am guessing he must do given his activities, but am not entirely sure.

Seems more "deeply wrong" that the rest of society picks up the tab for the stuff pro gamblers are getting for nothing.

If you aren't making a profit over a year, perhaps you shouldn't be gambling for a living.

As for TB, I'd be very surprised if he pays tax on his betting profits.

He must pay income tax/NI on all of this employee's wages though as an absolute bare minimum?  Surely all his staff can't work tax free as they are not self employed gamblers but workers with a gtd income?

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

His website is here FWIW

http://www.starlizard.com/what-we-do.html

I really don't see why it would be so complicated the government couldn't do it. It just classifying gambling as a trade. Then as I say the onus is on the individual to prove he wasn't engaged in the trade of gambling. In the vast vast majority of cases that will be obvious to anyone. And yeah some people will cheat and bend the law, but that's hardly new. Look at what happens in many other trades

I downloaded star lizard accounts from Companies House the other day. Will try and dig them out. Not particularly illuminating, which suggests the gambling income is not subject to tax.

But if you caount gambling as a trade, people could offest their losses against profits elsewhere?  And losers outnumber winners by a huge margin.  I know  other countries just tax winners, but that doesn't make it right.  I don't have the answers and do think gamblers could pay some tax, I just don't know a system that could make it sensible.  I genuinely think I am in a better position as a semi pro gambler than someone who has only gambling to fall back on.   

[Doobs]

Turns out I did so over a year ago.

Star Lizard made £270k profit from about £10.6m of turnover in 2012.

Thanks.  That satisfied my curiosity.

[AlunB]

I think the problem si a lot of things either become unworkable or inequitable.  

I am starting a job on Monday for the first time in a while.  This puts me in a much better position for my gambling than I was before.  I don't need to carry a big bank, I can spend a bit more freely, and safely gamble bigger.  My earnings overall will be a lot better, and I wil find it much easier to pay any tax.  But I see here that people like the new me won't have to pay any gambling tax, but the old me would.  That seems really wrong to me.   Also over the last 10 or so years I have done many periods where I have been new me and old me in the same tax year.  What do I get taxed then?  I hav ehad losing gambling years as well as wining ones, if I can carry forward these losses, then why can't somebody less proficient?

If the new me has to pay gambling tax, then what about the fella who sits next to me with a FOBT addiction.  Why doesn't he get tax relief from the wretched things that the Government collects so much revenue from?  I also know a few people through my profession who gamble in serious size on poker, markets and sports.  I am fairly sure some of them have huge swings year by year.  Where are we taxing/offsetting losses with them?  It just becomes very messy when you start thinking about it.

I don't really see how you can charge someone tax if they have no earnings, that seems deeply wrong to me.  I can't see anyody introducing a flat rate tax of that size any time soon, it is like Poll Tax on steroids.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of effort to craft new laws for not much revenue.  I am guesisng there must be a big chance costsrevenue here.

Anyway genuine question, does anyone know if Tony Bloom pays tax?  I am guessing he must do given his activities, but am not entirely sure.

Seems more "deeply wrong" that the rest of society picks up the tab for the stuff pro gamblers are getting for nothing.

If you aren't making a profit over a year, perhaps you shouldn't be gambling for a living.

As for TB, I'd be very surprised if he pays tax on his betting profits.

He must pay income tax/NI on all of this employee's wages though as an absolute bare minimum?  Surely all his staff can't work tax free as they are not self employed gamblers but workers with a gtd income?

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

His website is here FWIW

http://www.starlizard.com/what-we-do.html

I really don't see why it would be so complicated the government couldn't do it. It just classifying gambling as a trade. Then as I say the onus is on the individual to prove he wasn't engaged in the trade of gambling. In the vast vast majority of cases that will be obvious to anyone. And yeah some people will cheat and bend the law, but that's hardly new. Look at what happens in many other trades

I downloaded star lizard accounts from Companies House the other day. Will try and dig them out. Not particularly illuminating, which suggests the gambling income is not subject to tax.

But if you caount gambling as a trade, people could offest their losses against profits elsewhere?  And losers outnumber winners by a huge margin.  I know  other countries just tax winners, but that doesn't make it right.  I don't have the answers and do think gamblers could pay some tax, I just don't know a system that could make it sensible.  I genuinely think I am in a better position as a semi pro gambler than someone who has only gambling to fall back on.   

Hmm. Yeah maybe. I expect this comes down to defining the trade of gambling. You can't just go out and deliberate enter into a loss making activity and offset it against profits in any other trade. You need to meet certain criteria. A quick google tels me

 You need to spend at least ten hours a week on the business for HMRC to accept it as genuine, and you must be trading with a view to making a profit

[Doobs]

I think the problem si a lot of things either become unworkable or inequitable.  

I am starting a job on Monday for the first time in a while.  This puts me in a much better position for my gambling than I was before.  I don't need to carry a big bank, I can spend a bit more freely, and safely gamble bigger.  My earnings overall will be a lot better, and I wil find it much easier to pay any tax.  But I see here that people like the new me won't have to pay any gambling tax, but the old me would.  That seems really wrong to me.   Also over the last 10 or so years I have done many periods where I have been new me and old me in the same tax year.  What do I get taxed then?  I hav ehad losing gambling years as well as wining ones, if I can carry forward these losses, then why can't somebody less proficient?

If the new me has to pay gambling tax, then what about the fella who sits next to me with a FOBT addiction.  Why doesn't he get tax relief from the wretched things that the Government collects so much revenue from?  I also know a few people through my profession who gamble in serious size on poker, markets and sports.  I am fairly sure some of them have huge swings year by year.  Where are we taxing/offsetting losses with them?  It just becomes very messy when you start thinking about it.

I don't really see how you can charge someone tax if they have no earnings, that seems deeply wrong to me.  I can't see anyody introducing a flat rate tax of that size any time soon, it is like Poll Tax on steroids.

It just strikes me as a huge amount of effort to craft new laws for not much revenue.  I am guesisng there must be a big chance costsrevenue here.

Anyway genuine question, does anyone know if Tony Bloom pays tax?  I am guessing he must do given his activities, but am not entirely sure.

Seems more "deeply wrong" that the rest of society picks up the tab for the stuff pro gamblers are getting for nothing.

If you aren't making a profit over a year, perhaps you shouldn't be gambling for a living.

As for TB, I'd be very surprised if he pays tax on his betting profits.

He must pay income tax/NI on all of this employee's wages though as an absolute bare minimum?  Surely all his staff can't work tax free as they are not self employed gamblers but workers with a gtd income?

I assume he charges people who use his syndicates and consult with him on gambling.  I think it would be hard for him to argue he isn't running some kind of pooled investment business as well, so he should get taxed on that?  I have no idea if he does if he does pay tax, but if someone is curious enough to part with a bit of cash, I am sure they can find some accounts somewhere.

His website is here FWIW

http://www.starlizard.com/what-we-do.html

I really don't see why it would be so complicated the government couldn't do it. It just classifying gambling as a trade. Then as I say the onus is on the individual to prove he wasn't engaged in the trade of gambling. In the vast vast majority of cases that will be obvious to anyone. And yeah some people will cheat and bend the law, but that's hardly new. Look at what happens in many other trades

I downloaded star lizard accounts from Companies House the other day. Will try and dig them out. Not particularly illuminating, which suggests the gambling income is not subject to tax.

But if you caount gambling as a trade, people could offest their losses against profits elsewhere?  And losers outnumber winners by a huge margin.  I know  other countries just tax winners, but that doesn't make it right.  I don't have the answers and do think gamblers could pay some tax, I just don't know a system that could make it sensible.  I genuinely think I am in a better position as a semi pro gambler than someone who has only gambling to fall back on.   

Hmm. Yeah maybe. I expect this comes down to defining the trade of gambling. You can't just go out and deliberate enter into a loss making activity and offset it against profits in any other trade. You need to meet certain criteria. A quick google tels me

 You need to spend at least ten hours a week on the business for HMRC to accept it as genuine, and you must be trading with a view to making a profit

I am not sure I know a single gambler who intends to make a loss though?

[AlunB]

 

I would say most of those that do spend less than 10 hours a week on it

Thinking about it that could raise some interesting problems with poker for sure. Presumably with it being a zero sum game it should balance out in a closed market, but the UK isn't a closed market.

[redsimon]

When I worked at the Revenue if you made a profit on a sideline business  it was a business if you made a loss it was a hobby

[AlunB]

Just as an aside. Think how amazing it would be for the poker games if you could treat poker as self-employed income and offset against PAYE. Loads of people would set themselves up as poker traders and lose a ton of cash knowing they had a safety net of sorts.