Henry, if the lawyer says that the income isn't from a source, but the CRA disagrees with your lawyer's assessment and you subsequently lose the appeal, aren't you in the same situation as you were before? How does this assist in transferring liability from penalties away from yourself? (Forgive me from being naive about the law ... IANAL.)
It's probably all written down in that eBook ... some light nighttime reading there. ;-) Thanks for the link, TaxGuru!
Quote:
If poker is a game of skill is not directly relevant to poker income being taxable so I have no idea why any of that would matter.
It was a number of months ago ... someone was prattling on about the Finance department proposing that it wants the casino to monitor and report every poker cash transaction. Imagine how much fun cashing in and out of a poker game could get! :-(
It sounded like poker was going to be handled differently from all other games of luck within a casino, and treated differently for taxation purposes. If they decreed that all poker variants (Hold'Em, Omaha, Stud, et cetera) were games of skill and not luck, and simultaneously defined new regulations for games of skill; they could separate us from the hobby/business determination and decree that all recreational games of skill are a source of income and, therefore, taxable. From a policy point of view, that would be the easiest way to ensnare poker players within the CRA's grasp. Not necessarily fair, but it would make the rules much clearer than they are now!