In this Discussion
- [DeletedUser] January 2011
- carey January 2011
- Dark January 2011
- darkshines January 2011
- goose January 2011
- HenleyBrook January 2011
- matt January 2011
- Mountain January 2011
- mullyup January 2011
- pajones January 2011
- RazorSharp January 2011
- Rodent January 2011
- Semipropunter January 2011
- slipatiptome January 2011
- TheDiva January 2011
- thefalcon January 2011
- TheFunkster January 2011
- TheSwooper January 2011
- thetaxman January 2011
- Wyongi January 2011
Who's Online
0 Members & 47 Non Members
Comments
As Piston said, you'd never get set for that amount...anywhere!!
Even 10k would be a stretch at 33's.
It would never have paid what it did on the tote and I doubt if any agency would put up 33's..with the trainers reputation of being very astute.
Our big bookie would have been involved somewhere down the line with 100 at 33's.
Nah...never happen. You say, bellyup, that you got told on Friday...NFW.
No way in the world was there $100k on it. Was still $16 as they jumped.
Most bookies in the ring would have laid it and there was plenty of laying off from the corporates aswell.
You are confusing state taxes ( on all betting ) and federal tax. Regardless of whether a person or any business pays state taxes does not exempt them from paying federal income tax.If you run a business, say a real estate agency, and pay a state based registration tax that does not exempt you for paying federal income tax on your profit. Your analogy that"punters are taxed everytime they have a bet-win or lose" is irrelevant as the federal govt will tax anyone on their profit if they are deemed to be running a business, conveniently, they consider losing punters as not running a business, but if they can get their hands on a winning punter who they consider who is running a business ....watch out. Whether a state government 'is addicted to pokie revenue' has no relevance to whether a punter would be taxed on punting winnings as income tax is a federal tax not a state tax .
I have seen true professional punters in action and they leave no stone unturned. They have staff and everything about their operations is business like. Even some of these blokes have escaped the tax man :shock:
if you pay for things like video replays, form guides, foxtel IQ etc
keep detailed records on winnings/losings and do a regular number of hours devoted to the endeavour could be an indication
that indicates a business level
as someone already said tho - the taxman would have to have a very good case because then others will come in with losses
I devote a regular number of hours to golf and keep detailed records of my scores. A lot of amateurs do that. We do it to try to improve our game.
I've always spent money on form guides etc and I guess there are many recreational punters who do.
At the end of the day if it comes to the crunch, everything gets considered in court and it is up to a judge to decide what constitutes business like activity.
This is from a ruling I found on the ATO's website. I think my own punting is very very similar.
4. In Babka, the Federal Court (Hill J) again proceeded on the assumption that mere punting may constitute a business but, as in Evans, found it unnecessary to reach a final conclusion on the matter because, even if betting activities are inherently capable in some circumstances of constituting a business, the facts of the case did not reveal the taxpayer to be carrying on any business at all. His winnings were therefore not assessable. The taxpayer did not follow any betting system but he did place bets in accordance with several guiding principles. Judgment and instinct both played a part in the taxpayer's selection of horses on which to bet as well as in his choice of the amount and type of bet placed. That was sufficient to negate the concept of system and organisation which is the hallmark of a business. The taxpayer's activities "could [not] be said to exceed those of a keen follower of the turf". Hill J indicated that today mere punting, particularly with the growth of modern technology such as computers, could be so organised, systematic and businesslike and so dedicated to profit-making as to constitute a business. However, his Honour went on to say that the intrusion of chance into the activity as a predominant ingredient at least in the outcome of the race itself suggests that it will be a rare case where a court will conclude that the activity is a business.
I wonder if any stock market players could use that to avoid tax
Im sure a lot of market players use Judgement and Instinct where placing share orders
the issue would be trying to prove that share price movement involved "the intrusion of chance"
wondering about Poker Professionals - surely the ATO would have a few cases on that by now
Hardly anyone pays income tax on gambling. I believe a member of this forum set up a punting business and paid income tax. He of course received the tax benefits from running such a business.
Poker I think would be considered a game of skill and probably more taxable than punting. I don't know much about it but I'm sure people who play for prizemoney would certainly be taxable.
In Peter Babka's case back all those years ago ,there is no doubt Peter 'pulled the wool' over the judges' eyes. Peter was able to convince the judges that he was haphazard and bet randomly . I can assure you he was anything but. I bet beside Peter and he was well organised and was hardly haphazard as he made out. Sadly he passed on many years ago.
If you are interested have a look at Board of Review Case K25 on 31 May 1978. TB ( the taxpayer) was a good mate of Peter Babka and had exactly the same modus operandi but did not escape the taxman and was taxed on his winnings. Different judges different decisions..the luck of the draw
If you use numbers and computers to calculate an edge, that's a different beast. I've never been into that and it's probably why I'm not rich like the blokes who were/are.
I enjoy the pursuit of those elusive winners and if I had a mechanical system it would suck the fun out of the sport I love the most.
Way back in the 'old days' nobody had a computer, not on course anyhow, whereas today everyone has access to a computer..that changes the picture quite a bit.
Betfair might drag a few punters into the taxman's clutches. A lot of punters 'trade' on Betfair where they are both backing and laying the same horse in the same race. In my humble opinion that modus operandi would definitely attract the taxman's attention especially if that punter is a long term winner. The ATO would only need to convince a few judges in a case against a punter that a trading punter was running a business somewhat similar to any bookmaker. That would open a pandora's box of potential tax targets. Any tax audit would be a simple exercise as Betfair would have all the transactional history.
the late aw told me that hasham got his winnings tax free from winning the world championship.
dunno how he knew but he was adamant.