Quote:
Originally Posted by Equal
I hate to be a shiitdisturber, but I've done a lot of research over the last five years, and I'm leaning towards not paying next year. I think we've all been idiots basically, paying our taxes.
I dont have time to detail everything but basically:
1) never call it income, only call it gambling winnings
2) you "play whenever you feel like and dont play when you dont"
3) CRA has lost every time its tried to tax someone's gamblings winnings
4) its okay to keep records, use HEM, etc because the majority of non-winning players do the same
5) in the big picture, it's not in CRA's best interest to have winning poker players pay taxes because it opens the door for losing gamblers to claim losses
6) A few big name players I know are pretty confident they dont have to pay taxes.
Google Ben Alarie "Bet on it: the taxation of online gambling" 2007
Google Kyle Wilson Vancouver Sun poker+Christian for statements from Alarie, plus Wilson himself who basically states he doesnt pay taxes. He makes a lot more at poker than 99% of us.
I've paid my taxes like a good little sheep for 5 years because I was scared, but it looks like I'm going to be filing adjustments and trying to get my money back next year. I just dont see how CRA can win in court.
That being said, *I* dont want to be that guy that goes to court.
Consider this though:
1. What you call it means nothing - The CRA looks at substance not labels.
If they think it is income they will want a cut.
2.The tax act is clear that business income is taxable so if you fall into the criteria in their opinion then they may want a cut.
3. While the CRA has so far lost the cases, the courts accepted the concept of a professional gambler (just not in these cases).
4. This said, income is not always incidental to entertainment as the articles state. If the courts recognize the concept of a professional gambler then that can't always hold.
5. It is true that the courts have set the burden of proof higher in gambling cases because of history and public perceptions (a reason why the CRA has lost so far, and I have acknowledged this before here) BUT since the last court cases a lot has changed in society. TV, internet poker and a more knowledgable public means recognition of professional gambling more widely known and accepted and more people in society living off poker. This may lead future courts to more readily accept poker as a business and change the burden of proof the CRA has to reach.
6. Thus, relying on precedent in this area is hazardous and potentially expensive.
7. The CRA has in the past made its case poorly and there is no assurance they will continue to.
8. The idea that the CRA fears masses of people writing off losses has no merit. A blanket denial of losses unless you have previously declared income is trivially easy.
9. The reasons the CRA is not going after people are lack of resources, lack of political will, the difficulty in getting strong cases and respect for the public perception that most gambling is taxfree, not anything to do with the law or precedent.
10. While 99% of players are not taxable, there are some and they should realize that they are shielded by the low chance of prosecution rather than any legal basis or precendence if they don`t pay taxes.