Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Euromillions €210 million

Options
1…911131415

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    There would be no need to make up 10 cent stories. Only one ticket belonging to any syndicate will have the jackpot numbers, and it could easily be for a small amount. The number of lines on each play slip is limited, if the syndicate is buying their tickets in a shop.

    Good advice would be not to make any decision about who can sign the ticket until a few weeks have elapsed. The winner has 90 days to make the claim, and they might regret a hasty inclusion, or a hasty exclusion if they got the payout in a few days.

    But like I said before I would not let anyone else sign a ticket I bought for myself. A decision motivated by greed (stop the taxman getting any) is fraught with complications, and I like a quiet life.


  • Options
    #303
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    I think the point being made was that if you get them to sign the ticket they are entitled to an equal share in the prize

    That would be for a ticket bought by an existing syndicate (if that was the agreement they made). If someone buys a ticket for themselves, and it wins €210 million, they are not obliged to give any particular amount to someone they let sign the ticket.

    The Lottery pays out to one named person, and they don't care what way it is split up afterwards.


  • Options
    #304
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    The judge ruled that it was the series of prior verbal agreements that constituted the syndicate and ownership of the ticket, not the name(s) on the ticket itself.

    Curiously, the defendant made the claim the son's name was on the ticket because the Lotto advised her to, that if any beneficiaries (she had intented to give him the value of a house or convey a house to him, and not give him a share - or so she claimed), would be tax free. The Lotto denied ever saying this.


    The judge agreed as this would be illegal for beneficiaries to avoid tax by merely putting a signature on the ticket if there was no syndicate, based both on case law and pubic policy as outlined.

    I don’t think the judge said that at all. The defendant was asking that her agreement and the signing be thrown out as a contract because it was “contrary to public policy”. The judge denied this was the case.


  • Options
    #305
    startrek56
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭startrek56


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    What difference does it make if people think you're filthy rich from bitcoin Or winning the lotto? They're still going to know you're filthy rich. :confused:


    "You're worth 200m from a lotto win. Can I have some?"


    "Actually I'm worth 200m from bitcoin not the lotto."


    "Ah, ok. Never mind so."

    na... nice house and nice car in the country side in ireland... probably cost you less than 1m... they would never need to know you are worth 200m


  • Options
    #306
    startrek56
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭startrek56


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    They can touch you where it hurts. They can say "gerrup the yard" with your 10c story, assess each of the 34 others for gift tax, issue the assessments and go through their normal enforcement processes with extensive interest and penalties.

    So you'll be paying expensive lawyers and accountants to explain your 10c story to an appeals commissioner and later a High Court judge, who will each say "gerrup the yard", in a slightly posher way.

    but they cant, if you were happy to spit the lotto equally.. 20million each to 10 people, get all 10 to sign, lotto splits money equally between all 10, there is zilch revenue can do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    That would be for a ticket bought by an existing syndicate (if that was the agreement they made). If someone buys a ticket for themselves, and it wins €210 million, they are not obliged to give any particular amount to someone they let sign the ticket.

    The Lottery pays out to one named person, and they don't care what way it is split up afterwards.

    The lottery suggest all members of a syndicate sign up. Then there’s a claim form as well, for all.

    I’m pretty sure that you can’t run off with the money as the named guy or no syndicate would work.


  • Options
    #308
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The lottery suggest all members of a syndicate sign up. Then there’s a claim form as well, for all.

    I’m pretty sure that you can’t run off with the money as the named guy or no syndicate would work.

    All members of a syndicate have to sign a declaration, accompanied by photo ID, protecting the Lottery from any legal action. A syndicate has to nominate one person to get the payout.

    If anyone wants to take anyone else to court afterwards, it would be entirely among themselves, nothing to do with the Lottery.


  • Options
    #309
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    All members of a syndicate have to sign a declaration, accompanied by photo ID, protecting the Lottery from any legal action. A syndicate has to nominate one person to get the payout.

    If anyone wants to take anyone else to court afterwards, it would be entirely among themselves, nothing to do with the Lottery.

    Your the “declaration” is the claim form I just mentioned. What are you trying to argue here?

    Nobody is arguing that the lottery cares after the win but the tax situation is under discussion. That’s how it started.

    The lottery asks the syndicate to sign the ticket and submit claim forms per member. The tax situation then is that no tax is owed.


  • Options
    #310
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Your the “declaration” is the claim form I just mentioned. What are you trying to argue here?

    https://www.lottery.ie/useful-info/syndicates


  • Options
    #311
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    https://www.lottery.ie/useful-info/syndicates

    Yeh. I posted that. Or similar.

    What are you arguing. A link isn’t an argument.

    Here are the instructions.

    https://www.lottery.ie/content/dam/pli/docs/instructions-for-syndicates.pdf

    First Item:
    All members of the syndicate must sign the back of the ticket.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yeh. I posted that. Or similar.

    What are you arguing. A link isn’t an argument.

    Here are the instructions.

    https://www.lottery.ie/content/dam/pli/docs/instructions-for-syndicates.pdf

    First Item:
    All members of the syndicate must sign the back of the ticket.

    Another Item: What to do if your syndicate wins. That has all the legal stuff. The Lottery has to recognise every signature on the ticket (once verified) as being a claimant. But they pay out to one named person, and they have no function in what happens to the money after that.


  • Options
    #313
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,686 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    startrek56 wrote: »
    but they cant, if you were happy to spit the lotto equally.. 20million each to 10 people, get all 10 to sign, lotto splits money equally between all 10, there is zilch revenue can do.

    You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

    Revenue have no involvement in who the Lottery gives money to. Revenue have full control over the tax assessment of the money people get.

    You did see the statement from the Judge above?

    The judge agreed as this would be illegal for beneficiaries to avoid tax by merely putting a signature on the ticket if there was no syndicate, based both on case law and pubic policy as outlined.


  • Options
    #314
    startrek56
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭startrek56


    ah lads we havent even won the lotto yet and we are already fighting!!! :)

    anyway, im building a savage house in the irish countryside, buying a nice home in south of portugal, apartment in new york, house in the Caribbean and maybe a nice condo in south east asia..

    after that, buying an over finch...class


  • Options
    #315
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    unless it is a real syndicate why the fcuk would you split your money equally with 10 people!


  • Options
    #316
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,019 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    I remember years ago there was a case. I think the guy was a builder. All the guys on the site got in on the syndicate and they won. But he said "His mot" had bought the ticket and it was "His mot's" not the syndicate's ticket.

    He must have said "Mot" so many times that I remember the reporter (The "Don't go out in the storm woman") standing outside the courthouse very serious and professional and straghtfaced saying something like "The defendant's mot bought the ticket in Spar and therefor it was the defendant's mot's money and not the eejits on the site"


  • Options
    #317
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,444 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The lottery is tax free for the ticket owner. Signing a ticket does not make you a ticket owner.

    Revenue will be seeing you in Court so, if they want to push the matter.

    Yes, it does. If you declare the winners are then you're a syndicate and then the winnings are tax free.

    People here seem obsessed with signing tickets but that's irrelevant nowadays as so many people buy tickets online which is better as you can never lose your ticket.

    So all jackpot winners have to collect in person so when doing that they would declare who the winners are and these people get the money tax free and Revenue will not have an issue with it.


  • Options
    #318
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,686 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    murpho999 wrote: »
    Yes, it does. If you declare the winners are then you're a syndicate and then the winnings are tax free.

    People here seem obsessed with signing tickets but that's irrelevant nowadays as so many people buy tickets online which is better as you can never lose your ticket.

    So all jackpot winners have to collect in person so when doing that they would declare who the winners are and these people get the money tax free and Revenue will not have an issue with it.

    If you lie when declaring your syndicate, claiming existence of a syndicate that never existed, Revenue can come after you.


  • Options
    #319
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    I don't think a syndicate is a legal entity in the eyes of the Lottery. No point in turning up with documentation and saying to the Lottery, two of these people have died and we want the money to go to their family. Or trying to make any direction to the Lottery about what amount anyone is entitled to.

    But to do a tax fraud could be easy enough to arrange, and hard for the Revenue to disprove. The winning ticket does not have to be presented for 90 days. So they could get together and draw up some papers with a false date from before the ticket was bought. And then wait for 80 days before making the claim. The Lottery wouldn't be interested in their documentation, only in covering themselves by verifying all the signatures on the ticket, and getting everyone to indemnify the Lottery against any legal proceedings.

    The Revenue would have a tough time trying to get tax out of any of them, provided none of them did anything silly like going to court to claim a bigger share. Of course it would be fraud, but lots of people on the thread don't seem to see anything wrong with that.


  • Options
    #320
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    unless it is a real syndicate why the fcuk would you split your money equally with 10 people!

    to try and keep the tiger kidnappings at bay


  • Options
    #321
    Boscoirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭Boscoirl


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    to try and keep the tiger kidnappings at bay

    would your family go that far?:eek::D:p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    startrek56
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭startrek56


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    If you lie when declaring your syndicate, claiming existence of a syndicate that never existed, Revenue can come after you.

    there is no way they could ever find out


  • Options
    #323
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,598 ✭✭✭Allinall


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    I don't think a syndicate is a legal entity in the eyes of the Lottery. No point in turning up with documentation and saying to the Lottery, two of these people have died and we want the money to go to their family. Or trying to make any direction to the Lottery about what amount anyone is entitled to.

    But to do a tax fraud could be easy enough to arrange, and hard for the Revenue to disprove. The winning ticket does not have to be presented for 90 days. So they could get together and draw up some papers with a false date from before the ticket was bought. And then wait for 80 days before making the claim. The Lottery wouldn't be interested in their documentation, only in covering themselves by verifying all the signatures on the ticket, and getting everyone to indemnify the Lottery against any legal proceedings.

    The Revenue would have a tough time trying to get tax out of any of them, provided none of them did anything silly like going to court to claim a bigger share. Of course it would be fraud, but lots of people on the thread don't seem to see anything wrong with that.

    I think the critical thing is that the revenue don't need to prove fraud.

    If they think some of the recipients of the money got it as a gift, they will issue a tax assessment, and it is up to the individual to prove that it was not a gift.
    For such large sums, it will inevitably end up in court, and I wouldn't hold out much hope if it was a document drawn up as suggested above.

    Revenue are much smarter than most, including the best accountants and legal heads available.


  • Options
    #324
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Syndicates winning is rare, and usually not massive amounts. In the case of €210 million, I could see Revenue going after a fraud. But not in the run of the mill cases, because it is not a fraudulent practice which can become common.

    I expect that the holder of any ticket bought just for themselves, would get clear warning from any financial/legal adviser not to go down that road.


  • Options
    #325
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,686 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    startrek56 wrote: »
    there is no way they could ever find out

    Here's some other people who were absolutely certain that Revenue would never find out


    https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/revenue-prosecutions/index.aspx


  • Options
    #326
    startrek56
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭startrek56


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Here's some other people who were absolutely certain that Revenue would never find out


    https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/revenue-prosecutions/index.aspx

    how many of them are lotto related??


  • Options
    #327
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    startrek56 wrote: »
    there is no way they could ever find out


    It's an entirely different set of circumstances, but a former colleague of mine had a modest cryptocurrency windfall (but above the aforementioned 12k reporting threshold), and he attempted some elaborate shimmy so as not to have any taxable footprints in his Irish account. He didn't declare it to Revenue and they came down on him like a tonne of bricks.


    All I'm saying is never take Revenue for fools. And some of the advice here is to do just that. Smarter people than you or I have been rinsed by them for taking that chance. There's a case booked in the High Court which is pretty clear on avoidance for beneficiaries and Lotto wins.


  • Options
    #328
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    https://www.thesun.ie/news/irish-news/459679/lotto-may-have-broken-law-if-winner-of-e3-4million-jackpot-told-how-to-avoid-gift-tax/


    Revenue apparently took great interest in this very case and had lawyers present. See link.


  • Options
    #329
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,811 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Yurt! wrote: »
    https://www.thesun.ie/news/irish-news/459679/lotto-may-have-broken-law-if-winner-of-e3-4million-jackpot-told-how-to-avoid-gift-tax/


    Revenue apparently took great interest in this very case and had lawyers present. See link.

    It probably would have escaped noticed if the stepson hadn't brought the court case. I mentioned that scenario earlier.

    Revenue will get their cut eventually from any fraud, with Inheritance Tax.


  • Options
    #330
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,686 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    startrek56 wrote: »
    how many of them are lotto related??

    You tell me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    mikemac2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,932 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    TheIrishGrover wrote: »
    I remember years ago there was a case. I think the guy was a builder. All the guys on the site got in on the syndicate and they won. But he said "His mot" had bought the ticket and it was "His mot's" not the syndicate's ticket.

    He must have said "Mot" so many times that I remember the reporter (The "Don't go out in the storm woman") standing outside the courthouse very serious and professional and straghtfaced saying something like "The defendant's mot bought the ticket in Spar and therefor it was the defendant's mot's money and not the eejits on the site"

    I remember this case

    That scammer lost and I am sure he was treated as a pariah on any building site in future


Advertisement