"The Budget" and poker?

Treehouse72

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Sincere apologies.

Accepted, somewhat grumpily.

Ollieboy wrote: »

I'm sure the definition if income for this extra levy will be taxable income, similiar to the way lotto wins are exempt from tax etc.

There will be no tax payable on poker winnings from this budget.

But, if your a sponsor player and getting bought into tourments, than this gift or sponsorship would be taxable.... not saying this is true, but just wondering? As this money is not coming from gaming!

I think the point of calling it a "levy" and not a "tax increase" is specifically because it catches more types of income earners. That's what's worrying me and makes me think this could be payable by poker players. But obviously I hope you are right and it's a levy on "taxable income" (although I think Lenihan would have used that phrase if that's what he meant). I guess we'll know for sure in the coming days.

Grafter

a147pro wrote: »

what a photo. where tf do people get these photos, is there some website like forumpostphotos.com or something? particularly the ones with the cats?

Hitman Actual

It's actually an interesting point. A quick skim-read of this indicates that the levy only applies to income which is in the current tax net (including if you're below the minimum band), so poker players should be fine. But I'm no expert in this area.

Treehouse72

lenny_leonard wrote: »

It's actually an interesting point. A quick skim-read of this indicates that the levy only applies to income which is in the current tax net (including if you're below the minimum band), so poker players should be fine. But I'm no expert in this area.

Thanks Lenny.

Yeah, that's pretty hard to read, but I think the relevant bit for us is at the top of page 2 - "the income described in this paragraph is income from all sources...in accordance with the Income Tax Acts". So presumably poker winnings are treated as non-taxable in those Acts, and therefore is not defined as "income" wrt the levy.

Fingers crossed that this is the case.

RoundTower

does it also apply to capital gains/deposit interest etc which are not normally considered "income" and are taxed differently?. What types of "income" does it target other than the income you pay income tax on? does it change the tax exempt status of some artistic creations (not quite sure how that one works) or the houses where you can have non-taxable rent?

probably this isn't the right forum to ask this but the discussion is already here.

White Knight

RoundTower wrote: »

does it also apply to capital gains/deposit interest etc which are not normally considered "income" and are taxed differently?. What types of "income" does it target other than the income you pay income tax on? does it change the tax exempt status of some artistic creations (not quite sure how that one works) or the houses where you can have non-taxable rent?

probably this isn't the right forum to ask this but the discussion is already here.

DIRT and capital gains tax are both increased (up from 20 to 22 per cent).

hotspur

We are the only people who discriminate between poker winnings and gambling winnings I presume. Given that gambling is already taxed (you used to have the option of paying the tax on your winnings or your stake) I would imagine it would take specific changes to the tax law to establish "professional gambler" as an occupation to be taxed for income tax to affect us. Though they certainly should be taxing hitherto untaxed online winnings imo.

They surely cannot tax you at the bookies at 2% and then tax you *again* on winnings.
Also it is almost certainly the case that all the bookies will absorb the extra 1%, to do otherwise would merely lead to a competitive advantage for those who decided to absorb it.

RoundTower

White Knight wrote: »

DIRT and capital gains tax are both increased (up from 20 to 22 per cent).

but in separate pieces of legislation, I take it, not the "income levy" one?

ArmaniJeanss

hotspur wrote: »

Also it is almost certainly the case that all the bookies will absorb the extra 1%, to do otherwise would merely lead to a competitive advantage for those who decided to absorb it.

When it was previously at 2%, the bookies didn't absorb it. They actually charged a 'tax' of 3% at that time (round about 2004/05). The extra % was supposedly for the cost of TV pictures etc.
Whether or not they absorb it this time will depend on what Paddy Powers choose to do.

I think RT's analysis is correct on the levy issue.

White Knight

RoundTower wrote: »

but in separate pieces of legislation, I take it, not the "income levy" one?

separate afaik yes

RoundTower

I looked through the new legislation and it looks like the income levy will apply to certain types of income that would normally be classified as income, but were specifically carved out as tax shelters in the 1997 Act: stud farms, those houses, certain "creative works", certain mines, etc, but not to an individual's gambling income because it would not normally be classified as income. Pretty much what everyone else was saying, but I could still have misread it.

Grafter

I'd be 99.9% sure that they will have taken the Brit's approach of poker winnings are not taxable because most people lose and we can't have you claiming tax relief on your losses.

Otherwise ye'd all win on Ladbrokes, Betfred and VC and lose on Paddy's and Boyles's.

RoundTower

Grafter wrote: »

I'd be 99.9% sure that they will have taken the Brit's approach of poker winnings are not taxable because most people lose and we can't have you claiming tax relief on your losses.

Otherwise ye'd all win on Ladbrokes, Betfred and VC and lose on Paddy's and Boyles's.

this is allegedly the justification behind it but a hundred other countries seem to have drafted laws that allow winnings to be taxed and losses not to be written off, so I'm 99.9% sure this is not the real reason.

Grafter

RoundTower wrote: »

this is allegedly the justification behind it but a hundred other countries seem to have drafted laws that allow winnings to be taxed and losses not to be written off, so I'm 99.9% sure this is not the real reason.

I agree entirely that I was overly simplistic. I'd take bad odds that nobody from any of the main company's participates in this thread and I don't blame them. They and we have it good. It ain't broke so .....

hotspur

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

When it was previously at 2%, the bookies didn't absorb it. They actually charged a 'tax' of 3% at that time (round about 2004/05). The extra % was supposedly for the cost of TV pictures etc.
Whether or not they absorb it this time will depend on what Paddy Powers choose to do.

This isn't true, the majority of bookies did absorb the 2% tax, Paddy Power made the decision to do it as far back as 2001 when the tax was dropped from 5%. When the British firms like Stanley decided to absorb it then any bookmakers within competing distance of one had to absorb it too. This lead to a situation where some bookies would absorb it in one location but not the other. One of the main effects was a squeezing of the smaller independent bookmakers.

RichardB2

The reason profits from gambling are not defined as income goes back to a case between one
Alex Bird & the British Revenue in the 60's where the Revenue claimed that as Mr Birds primary
income was gambling they were entitled to include all such income when assessing his personal tax.
He counter claimed that if in fact his gambling amounted to a business enterprise
than he should be entitled to write off all associated costs, including losing bets.

The Revenue withdrew their application to the courts because of the
enormous potential cost of accepting gambling losses as a tax write off.
The Irish legislature at the time tended to accept precedents established in British courts
because so many laws in the republic were adapted from the time of (ahem) colonial rule.
Thus profits from gambling are not treated as "income" for tax purposes.

Treehouse72

RichardB2 wrote: »

The reason profits from gambling are not defined as income goes back to a case between one
Alex Bird & the British Revenue in the 60's where the Revenue claimed that as Mr Birds primary
income was gambling they were entitled to include all such income when assessing his personal tax.
He counter claimed that if in fact his gambling amounted to a business enterprise
than he should be entitled to write off all associated costs, including losing bets.

The Revenue withdrew their application to the courts because of the
enormous potential cost of accepting gambling losses as a tax write off.
The Irish legislature at the time tended to accept precedents established in British courts
because so many laws in the republic were adapted from the time of (ahem) colonial rule.
Thus profits from gambling are not treated as "income" for tax purposes.

Thanks for that Richard, interesting. Makes a lot of sense and one imagines it would be very hard to get around this, even nowadays, hallelujia!

DEEP THROAT

If the Government ever gets around to updating the gambling laws in this country I could see them putting a tax on poker. It would be impossible to put it on online poker ( not based here ), but live poker could be easily hit.

I would imagine it would be done on the lines of turnover not profit, ie every time you enter a tournament the government will take a % registration fee and they will do something along the lines of charge per hour for cash games.

And if you think that % will be small its not that long ago that the betting tax was 20% on all bets struck in a betting shop.

hotspur

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

If the Government ever gets around to updating the gambling laws in this country I could see them putting a tax on poker. It would be impossible to put it on online poker ( not based here ), but live poker could be easily hit.

I would imagine it would be done on the lines of turnover not profit, ie every time you enter a tournament the government will take a % registration fee and they will do something along the lines of charge per hour for cash games.

And if you think that % will be small its not that long ago that the betting tax was 20% on all bets struck in a betting shop.

[ ] well thought out

Connie69

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

If the Government ever gets around to updating the gambling laws in this country I could see them putting a tax on poker. It would be impossible to put it on online poker ( not based here ), but live poker could be easily hit.

I would imagine it would be done on the lines of turnover not profit, ie every time you enter a tournament the government will take a % registration fee and they will do something along the lines of charge per hour for cash games.

And if you think that % will be small its not that long ago that the betting tax was 20% on all bets struck in a betting shop.

Whe Hey.....



Back to the bad old days when your friendly bookie wud leave you bet tax free!!!:rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

hotspur wrote: »

[ ] well thought out

I can never figure out the checkboxes thing properly, but I take it you think thats DeepThroats post isn't well thought out?

Why not?, i'd have thought that a tax on tournament registration fees would be a simple piece of legislation, and relatively easy to enforce/collect.
Probably not very lucrative though.

hotspur

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I can never figure out the checkboxes thing properly, but I take it you think thats DeepThroats post isn't well thought out?

Why not?, i'd have thought that a tax on tournament registration fees would be a simple piece of legislation, and relatively easy to enforce/collect.
Probably not very lucrative though.

Yeah the lack of a tick means the negation of whatever comes after the box. It's a 2+2ism.

Firstly he said they can't tax online poker, of course they can tax winnings from online poker and it is done in loads of countries.

Secondly the idea of charging tax per hour for sitting at a cash game is, um, not a very good one.

DEEP THROAT

hotspur wrote: »

Yeah the lack of a tick means the negation of whatever comes after the box. It's a 2+2ism.

Firstly he said they can't tax online poker, of course they can tax winnings from online poker and it is done in loads of countries.

Secondly the idea of charging tax per hour for sitting at a cash game is, um, not a very good one.

And anyone with half a brain can evade it. The Government like tax schemes that are easy to administer. Having the poker playing community in the country coming up accounts to show they didn't make any money last year would not be the way to go and would only have a few vain "I must be good look at the tax I paid types" in the net.

Taxing every tournament reg fee could not be done online because all the online companies will move offshore ( the ones that aren't already and not to mention the ones that aren't Irish) and claim the Government cannot legislate for them as they are not in this country.

The Government could decide that a 10% tax on all tournament entries is part of any gaming license issued. The Irish open entry fee €3500 600 runners = €200k tax for the Government that the Organizers levy and pass on. Not very well thought out???

But by all means continue with your I've nothing worthwhile to add so I'll add nothing worthwhile type responses.:rolleyes:

strewelpeter

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

The Government could decide that a 10% tax on all tournament entries is part of any gaming license issued. The Irish open entry fee €3500 600 runners = €200k tax for the Government that the Organizers levy and pass on. Not very well thought out???

But by all means continue with your I've nothing worthwhile to add so I'll add nothing worthwhile type responses.:rolleyes:

10% of entries tax wouldn't raise 210K because you wouldn't get 16 runners never mind 600 .

hotspur

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

And anyone with half a brain can evade it.

Really? Because they don't in reality, you can theorise about it if you wish, but for those of us who *actually* know what we are talking about taxes on online poker winnings are an absolute bitch in the countries which have it, people even emigrate due to it.

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

Taxing every tournament reg fee could not be done online because all the online companies will move offshore ( the ones that aren't already and not to mention the ones that aren't Irish) and claim the Government cannot legislate for them as they are not in this country.

You are the only person (and likely the only person in the world ever) to suggest a country

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

might look at charging a tournament registration fee for online tournaments. I certainly didn't suggest something as moronic as that, so I'm slightly at a loss as to why you felt the need to point out something so irrelevant and obvious.

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

The Government could decide that a 10% tax on all tournament entries is part of any gaming license issued. The Irish open entry fee €3500 600 runners = €200k tax for the Government that the Organizers levy and pass on. Not very well thought out???

I didn't take issue with the idea that the government could tax offline tournament registration. However it would be a very difficult area, as would the entire area of legal non-casino poker tournaments when the future gaming law comes about.

But by all means continue with your I've nothing worthwhile to add so I'll add nothing worthwhile type responses.:rolleyes:

I apologise for the snarky 2+2 checkbox, I was in a very bad mood when I did it and it was unnecessary to say the least. But I do fundamentally disagree with some of the points you made. And just between you and me, I actually know a thing or two about the area.

If anyone wants to read a thesis on the possibility of regulating online gaming in Ireland through taxation you could hit up John O'Shea (dagunman) who wrote an interesting dissertation on the topic a few months ago for his MBS.

DKM economic consultants released a report this month on an economic assessment of a regulated casino sector in Ireland. It was sponsored by the Gaming and Leisure Association of Ireland. It isn't very good to be honest, but then I'm used to reading Godawful economic reports from uniformed hacks on the gaming industry when some gaming industry group pays for a consultancy firm to knock out some rubbish with pretty graphs. But you can download it here: (this is a direct download link)
http://www.glai.ie/?download=DKM%20Report%202008.pdf

Btw did anyone from here (BCB?) attend the Gaming Compliance conference in Dublin last week?

DEEP THROAT

hotspur wrote: »

Really? Because they don't in reality, you can theorise about it if you wish, but for those of us who *actually* know what we are talking about taxes on online poker winnings are an absolute bitch in the countries which have it, people even emigrate due to it.



You are the only person (and likely the only person in the world ever) to suggest a country

I apologise for the snarky 2+2 checkbox, I was in a very bad mood when I did it and it was unnecessary to say the least. But I do fundamentally disagree with some of the points you made. And just between you and me, I actually know a thing or two about the area.

Inform me so about how to tax online winnings.

Will this be done on a yearly basis for overall profit?

Will the entire internet poker playing fraternity be required to have pokertracker available for random checks by the inland revenue?

Will chip dumping to your Northern Ireland cousin become a crime?

Will the banks be required to inform the revenue every time Paddy Power transfer money to someones account?

Will having a Neteller account become illegal?


The one country that I've spoken to people from that taxes online gaming wins is Norway and they pay a % (20 I think ) every time they cash out from a site to their bank account. There are numerous ways around this.

Putting a levy on something as it is being paid for is the easy efficient way to tax. There is no leaving people figure out their own tax liabilities. All poker rooms keeps records of every tournament/cash game played on its premises. The revenue if so inclined can put a levy on all reg fees / rake paid quite easily.

The point I was making was that this would not work easily in the online side of poker, and leaving people declare their annual profits would be a waste of time.

You keep claiming you know what you are talking about but you manage to duck out from saying How online wins could be efficiently taxed.

DEEP THROAT

strewelpeter wrote: »

10% of entries tax wouldn't raise 210K because you wouldn't get 16 runners never mind 600 .

10% reg fee doesn't seem to stop them

phantom_lord

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

Inform me so about how to tax online winnings.

Will this be done on a yearly basis for overall profit?

Will the entire internet poker playing fraternity be required to have pokertracker available for random checks by the inland revenue?

Will chip dumping to your Northern Ireland cousin become a crime?

Will the banks be required to inform the revenue every time Paddy Power transfer money to someones account?

Will having a Neteller account become illegal?


The one country that I've spoken to people from that taxes online gaming wins is Norway and they pay a % (20 I think ) every time they cash out from a site to their bank account. There are numerous ways around this.

Putting a levy on something as it is being paid for is the easy efficient way to tax. There is no leaving people figure out their own tax liabilities. All poker rooms keeps records of every tournament/cash game played on its premises. The revenue if so inclined can put a levy on all reg fees / rake paid quite easily.

The point I was making was that this would not work easily in the online side of poker, and leaving people declare their annual profits would be a waste of time.

You keep claiming you know what you are talking about but you manage to duck out from saying How online wins could be efficiently taxed.

they've been taxing it in the us for years, so it's obviously not as difficult as you're trying to make it out it be. i've never checked out how they do it, but if you're so curious about it, any chance u could check it out and tell me?

DEEP THROAT

phantom_lord wrote: »

they've been taxing it in the us for years, so it's obviously not as difficult as you're trying to make it out it be. i've never checked out how they do it, but if you're so curious about it, any chance u could check it out and tell me?

I thought online gaming was illegal in the US, but if they're still taxing it I'd imagine it's done on a self assessment basis.

phantom_lord

yeah i knew that much, i'm just curious about the ins and outs of it.