"The Budget" and poker?

ditpoker

Havent done much research on this, but the mother is after mentioning that there is going to be a "tax on gambling", now either she is winding me up (quite likely) or this is a tax on some other form of degeneracy that doesnt effect me (again, quite likely) but does todays Budget effect my poker directly at all??

Beau x1

I was wondering this too. There's certainly a tax on gambling; but I don't know if it's on brick and mortor casinos or your online winnings too. We'll see.

aidankk

Budget 2009: Gambling Tax

---

Gambling tax up 100% from 1% to 2%.

You'd have to imagine the bookies will have a serious think about passing it on to the consumer once again.


The above is from the Gambling Forum it looks to me as if it just concerns at the counter tax in Shops. At 1% most shops were not taking it anyway..

Samoa Joe

ditpoker wrote: »

Havent done much research on this, but the mother is after mentioning that there is going to be a "tax on gambling", now either she is winding me up (quite likely) or this is a tax on some other form of degeneracy that doesnt effect me (again, quite likely) but does todays Budget effect my poker directly at all??

if its a tax on winnings Jeff its obviously not going to effect you too much

ditpoker

definately not on my 2008!! and DEFINATELY not on my boyle's account!!!

5starpool

I was going to post along the lines of:

===============
There is only a poker tax on tournements with more than 500 runners. In these tournies there is a €20 tax per person.
===============

But considering the last time I made a joke in this forum 20 people contacted me, some more than a little annoyed, I thought I better not.

Mellor

Just to be clear, this isn't a new tax, it was just increased

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Ste05

what Lloyd said

phantom_lord

This tax been around for a very long time, it's only on sports betting, got nothing to do with poker. mccreevy dropped it to 1% a few years ago and since then it's been absorbed by bookies, which is probably why you've never heard of it. It never had anything to do with poker though.

Treehouse72

But the 1% income levy surely does apply to (mainly full time) poker players? If so, this is quite a big deal for many who will never have been linked into the taxation system before given there is no income tax on poker winnings. I mean, will people be sending HEM screenshots to the revenue to show their income? Maybe.

robinblinds

ditpoker wrote: »

Havent done much research on this, but the mother is after mentioning that there is going to be a "tax on gambling", now either she is winding me up (quite likely) or this is a tax on some other form of degeneracy that doesnt effect me (again, quite likely) but does todays Budget effect my poker directly at all??

Move out.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Treehouse72

^^^^ Lloyd, why not just tell me what I'm missing rather than being a smart arse? ^^^^

White Knight

Treehouse72 wrote: »

^^^^ Lloyd, why not just tell me what I'm missing rather than being a smart arse? ^^^^

Poker profits have never been a taxable income. There is no provision change in the budget for it. So why would they be subject to a 1% levy on income?

ArmaniJeanss

White Knight wrote: »

Poker profits have never been a taxable income. There is no provision change in the budget for it. So why would they be subject to a 1% levy on income?

Because (I think this is treehouses theory) the levy applies to income which is not subject to income tax. I think he is wrong but didnt deserve 'head-in-hands' man.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Lads, it was already noted above that it was doubling of an already existent tax - not the introduction of a new one. Ergo, if poker had not been taxed up to now - today's budget could not possibly change that fact.

Entirely deserved imo.

I thought he was talking about the 1% 'income' levy ?

a147pro

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?

Treehouse72

White Knight wrote: »

Poker profits have never been a taxable income. There is no provision change in the budget for it. So why would they be subject to a 1% levy on income?

Because it is not a tax, it is a levy, and as far as I can see it is on all income irrespective of where that income comes from, with the exception of welfare recipients. Nothing to do with income tax per se.

Brian Lenihan: “This levy will allow all income earners to contribute in a proportionate manner to the restoration of order and stability to the public finances.” All income earners is his carefully chosen phrase.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1014/breaking8.htm

Honestly Lloyd, before you go posting silly pictures demeaning other posters, perhaps you should get your facts straight. I am not saying I am certainly correct and you are certainly wrong, but I can tell you for sure that you cannot be as sure about this as your picture suggests. Poor show dude.

Maybe someone with some knowledge about this stuff can come up with a definitive answer.

phantom_lord

lol lloyd!

Treehouse72

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Lads, it was already noted above that it was doubling of an already existent tax - not the introduction of a new one. Ergo, if poker had not been taxed up to now - today's budget could not possibly change that fact.

Entirely deserved imo.

Lloyd, I am not talking about the gambling tax. I am talking about the bloody income levy.

ocallagh

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

it was doubling of an already existent tax - not the introduction of a new one.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

he was talking about the 1% 'income' levy ?

ocallagh

oh and just to be clear the hea din hands was intended for Lloyd's post!

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

ocallagh

too late, wow you're not on form

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Ollieboy

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Lloyd, I am not talking about the gambling tax. I am talking about the bloody income levy.

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!

ocallagh

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

head in hands

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: