While it's great for Canadian professionals that this is the more recent precedent being set, it's still troubling that they're actively targeting professionals, even if they are mainly in Quebec.

Curious if there's any more information on this?

I've been mainly instructed to keep records but not declare poker winnings. Some of the information in this thread conflicts with that. Curious what other pros think?

You have to keep records, because if you don't then the assumption is that the money came from a taxable source. You do not have to declare, since gambling winnings are not taxable (unless the CRA can prove you have a winning system).

i mean it is tax free in canada already, lol.

Hilarious. Good luck explaining online poker to these people.

Maybe related?

Duhamel owes 1.2m to the CRA

Article (in french) - https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/202...an-duhamel.php

Interesting to follow. Hope CRA loses yet another case and duhamel has a good lawyer


Anyone knowledgeable have any opinions or ideas on how this will go?

I cannot read french so had to use translator and can't translate this image :



Are they going after taxes on his winnings + sponsorship money? or just claiming he didn't pay taxes on the winnings alone - he might fk himself if he skipped out on taxes all together when article I think says he was paid $1m+ from stars to be part of stars pro team

it looks like the bulk of what they claim he owes comes from his 2010 main event win.

Also after thinking of it, out of any cases ive seen this is probably their best shot at getting someone for tax money isn't it ? Sponsored pro with big $ involved , marketed and big name back in the day in poker media everyone knows of him as a 'poker pro' ? (And has 'won' millions which is obv just luckboxing a donkament but some lawyers for CRA won't care about that)


compared to random guy playing online poker for a living and no one knows his irl name just his poker alias who doesn't pay taxes and keeps a low profile

What odds do you guys figure the odds are in CRA vs Duhamel?

Is it 50/50?

A few years ago QC lost vs David Bazov (former Amaya/Stars owner) in the insider trading case (about buying shares of amaya before pokerstars purchase), which seemed like a 99/1 win for QC pre-trial.

Can someone succinctly explain the law in Canada for taxes on poker winnings, I've heard so many contradictory statements.

I could be wrong, but I think the consensus is that is a "grey zone now" which basically means that while people should be paying, very few if any actually do.

If Duhamel loses this it means this perhaps it will be less of a grey zone, but perhaps the CRA will only come after the big players with public official results like Duhamel or Sam Greenwood.

"If you have a reasonable expectation of profit from poker and treat it like a business, you owe taxes"


The grey area seems to be what constitutes a 'poker business' , Sauce posted article above of a poker player who was advised by an accountant that he should pay taxes while playing a few years after quitting his job to play poker full time, made good money seemingly, then found out different advice and felt he did not actually owe taxes for his poker winnings and filed to get his money back from those previous years, his request was declined multiple times, took them to court and won the appeal to get his paid taxes back.

Seemingly because of CRA lawyers inability to prove that just because he tracked his winnings , played many hours a week , had strategy's and training to improve his skills, made a lot of money consistently meant that it was a business; his (Peter Radonjic's) argument seemed like it was that poker is not a zero sum game, the house is the only guaranteed winner and you just gamble money against other players who are also trying to win with their strategies and hope you come out on top, as 'any gambler' hopes to do.

My understanding is CRA has never been able to prove in court that a poker player was running a business and owed taxes , or at least that is what I see repeated in the mega thread over a sample of however many cases there have been over the years; which is not to say they never will - but so far at least playing poker for a living is gambling and gambling winnings are not taxed in canada.


Maybe Peter himself is still around or someone else more familiar than me who has played poker for years in Canada will be able to drop in and give their 2cents on the past cases and their predictions for this Duhamel one

Am I missing something here with the tax %?

For example, it's claiming his net revenue for 2010 is 4.8mm, but he "only" owes 800K?

I was under the impression it would be far more than that. Also possible I'm mistranslating here.

I am not familiar with Canadian taxes, but it appears to be ~18%, which is in line with what I am paying as an American on a federal level. Granted I am in a different tax bracket than someone making 4.8mm, but I am paying ~18% for my federal, FICA, and medicare. I am then paying additional taxes on the state and local level.

If Canada has just a flat tax and this is only an issue with his federal taxes and not local or province taxes it seems somewhat reasonable.

basically in canada you would be a fool to pay tax for poker winnings, sports bet winnings, any gambling winnings at all. report nothing. its worked for me my entire career. hope that helps!

Do you invest any portion of your profits? Interest earned on your gambling wins is considered taxable so if 100% of your earnings are from gambling it would be fairly easy for CRA to identify and assess.

If I was a professional gambler and this was my sole source of income I wouldn't declare it either but I would be logging it each year and putting that money aside.

Well you have to understand how the system works. First there is the Canadian Revenue Agency, which is like the IRS. Their position is that if you are a professional gambler if you make the majority of your income from gambling and/or you have a reasonable expectation of profit.


However, the CRA is not the ultimate authority on this matter. The court system is. And historically, the CRA has a very low win percentage when trying to take professional gamblers to court for their share of the loot. And this is because the court system is very careful about classifying anyone as a professional gambler, because they don't want people to be able to write off their losses. The potential tax money they can earn squeezing grinders is a drop in the bucket compared to how much they could lose from rich punters if they were able to write off their losses.

An expectation of profit?

"This very topic was addressed in Balanko v. Minister of National Revenue [1981], where the court stated that gambling with a view to profit is an intention, “shared by all who gamble, and the presence of the intention to win or make money in gambling, which is there in all who gamble, does not lead to a conclusion that all who gamble, or even all those who gamble frequently, are carrying on a business."


Everyone who gambles expects to profit, says the court. That is why they gamble. The majority of your income? So if you win it's taxable, you're a pro, but if you lose then too bad you're a fish? That's not very fair is it. Likewise, being organized, operating "like a business" is not sufficient. And what of lottery winners? Surely those windfalls constitute the majority of their income. The CRA has to demonstrate that the player has a winning system. That is how they won their only victory in court, because the guy was a billiards pro, and he would show up when guys were drunk and he would be sober.

This is a great write up. Especially the explanation as to why they are careful to classify gambling winnings as a business.

Regarding the bolded I had an accountant try to explain this to me, and that's what the CRA was unable to prove in court. Even though Radonjik was using advanced strategies such as charts, a HUD, other types of software assistance, they couldn't prove to the court's satisfaction that it was enough to be classified as a "winning system", because even if you played perfectly using these advanced strategies, you still have no guarantee of winning (or at least that's what they argued in court). However, if Radonjik was cheating in any way, such as seeing his opponents hole cards, colluding, or multiaccounting, then that would likely be considered a "winning system" and therefore his winnings would be taxable.

I don't necessarily agree with the legal arguments made in that case and if you read through the judge's notes you'll see that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of what winning poker looks like, what poker is, what online poker is, and a gross over-estimation of luck's involvement in poker. I think that this case is not an example to point at and say that poker isn't considered taxable in Canada; if a similar case was brought the courts today, it might go the other way.

All that being said, as of right now it seems to be a very real grey zone and whether or not the courts set precedence, or won't rule against poker players (potentially), that doesn't mean the CRA won't try to pursue poker winnings.

New French article about the CRA going after three "poker professionals': Philippe D'Auteuil, Antoine Berube and Martin Fournier-Giguere.

CRA alleges they committed a serious error in not reporting income, and owe back taxes that could total $7m.

Court should render a decision in the upcoming months.

Article also discusses the nature of "bumhunting", staking/buying shares of players, the defendants arguments against taxation, the CRA's argument for taxation, Fournier-Giguere asking forums how to 'stay under the radar' of CRA and Hold'em Manager/PT4.

This should provide the translation into English:

https://www-lapresse-ca.translate.go...&_x_tr_pto=nui

It includes:


"+ 30%

Highly skilled poker players typically make a 30% profit margin on their long-term bets, according to a study by two US economists (including co-author of the book Freakonomics ).

- 15%

Regular poker players typically lose 15%, according to the same National Bureau of Economic Research study published in 2011.

Source: National Bureau of Economic Research"

What does this mean

How do poker players make long term bets?

Do they mean like an MTT players long term ROI?

Is one hand of poker considered long term, or one tournament?

It is saying that it is their expectation over a significant sample size.

Both of those numbers seem (with no advanced mathematical training) absurd. I have significant doubts that the studies conducted to calculate poker earnings for taxing purposes paint an accurate picture of the prospects, and that they reflect the significant fluctuations in the market that reduce those projected profit margins.