Tax on private gambling

The_Pete_Fella

To start off there is an underlying agenda on this but it is more to settle a debate than anything.

Section 82, Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 states " the receipt by a person of any sum bona fide by way of winnings from betting or from any lottery, sweepstake or game with prizes."

If i was to make a bet with my father and the stake was the family residence. if he was to lose, would i be the owner of the property without have any liability for CAT?

CIARAN_BOYLE

The_Pete_Fella wrote: »

To start off there is an underlying agenda on this but it is more to settle a debate than anything.

Section 82, Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 states " the receipt by a person of any sum bona fide by way of winnings from betting or from any lottery, sweepstake or game with prizes."

If i was to make a bet with my father and the stake was the family residence. if he was to lose, would i be the owner of the property without have any liability for CAT?

Do you or your father have a licence under the terms of the gaming and lotteries act 1956 or Betting Acts 1931 to 2015 to run such a betting service? If he does then you would have no CAT, if you do you would have no CAT but you would have to pay income tax on your income from your betting business, after all if you have a license then you are running a business not placing an individual bet.

If neither of you have such a licence then its not a bona fide way of winning from betting, or from any lottery sweepstake or game with prizes.

adrianw

Do you have €x hundred thousand in case you lost the bet? Revenue are not stupid.
If you regularly make bets for €500,000 on a flip of a coin maybe there would be merit. But if your old man is betting his home on Japan to win the rugby world cup, Revenue may ask a few questions.

KlausFlouride

Revenue will always have a get out somewhere in the legislation saying they can look through an artificial arrangement to the substance underneath.

They do ignore some stuff not worth the grief. One example I heard that always tickled me was CAT on engagement rings (stranger in blood threshold/15k limit)

CIARAN_BOYLE

KlausFlouride wrote: »

Revenue will always have a get out somewhere in the legislation saying they can look through an artificial arrangement to the substance underneath.

They do ignore some stuff not worth the grief. One example I heard that always tickled me was CAT on engagement rings (stranger in blood threshold/15k limit)

from moment of engagement an engaged couple are deemed maried for cat purposes, if they split up all gifts from one party to the other given during engagement belong to the person who originally gave them

KlausFlouride

Interesting. Was the legislation changed, or is it a knock on from civil partnership law?

CIARAN_BOYLE

KlausFlouride wrote: »

Interesting. Was the legislation changed, or is it a knock on from civil partnership law?

Section 4 Family Law Act 1981

4.—Where a party to an agreement to marry makes a gift of property (including an engagement ring) to the other party, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the gift—

(a) was given subject to the condition that it should be returned at the request of the donor or his personal representative if the marriage does not take place for any reason other than the death of the donor, or

(b) was given unconditionally, if the marriage does not take place on account of the death of the donor.

was interpreted by some judge to mean that since gifts given between engaged couples are on the presumption of marriage and since ownership reverts to the disponer on should the marriage not take place it should be treated as gifts between maried couples. I can't find the case law atm.