UK poker player wins court case "winnings are not earnings"
04-28-2014
, 09:30 AM
04-28-2014
, 09:35 AM
04-28-2014
, 10:37 AM
Quote:
I honestly don't know why he chose to use the word organised. Simply put, gambling winnings in the UK are not classed as taxable income and as such cannot be classed as 'gainful employment'. Perhaps his use of the term organised refers to a luck vs skill argument, i.e. are his poker winnings sustainable long-term.
Quote:
‘Now we come to betting, pure and simple… the man who bets with the bookmaker, and that is this case. These are mere bets. Each time he puts on his money, at whatever may be the starting price. I do not think he could be said to organise his effort in the same way as a bookmaker organises his. I do not think the subject matter from his point of view is susceptible of it. In effect all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player at cards, who plays every day. He plays today and he plays tomorrow and he plays the next day and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But I do not think that you can find, in his case, any conception arising in which his individual operations can be said to be merged in the way that particular operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man ... is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting. The subject is involved in great difficulty of language, which I think represents great difficulty of thought. There is no tax on a habit. I do not think ”habitual” or even “systematic” fully describes what is essential in the phrase “trade, adventure, profession or vocation”.’
04-29-2014
, 04:22 AM
