No that is not true. The reason this went to court is not solely because of the length of time that passed. The main reason this went to court is because Radonjic disagreed with the CRA's decision that his poker income was taxable and it was the only process he had available to him after the CRA essentially told him to take a hike.

Anyone who truly believes that poker is not taxable and has gone thru the effort to request an adjustment is not going to stop if/when the CRA says no.

The next step is court

The issue Radonjic is the reasonableness of CRA in denying Radonjic his adjustments. It has nothing to do with the issue of whether his winnings are income from a taxable source or not. He should have been allowed to make his adjustment independently of the separate taxability issue. Radonjic is an admin law case rather than a tax law case.

Despite being successful in his trial there is nothing about the Radonjic decision that would prevent CRA from auditing Radonjic and deciding that the winnings are from a taxable source. Radonjic would then have to go to Tax Court to have another trial on that issue.

So in short hdskate is correct.

Strategy behind it is by letting them know about my gambling winnings every year i am limiting the amount of years they can go back for back taxes to 4 years. If i dont let them know they can argue fraud or misreprentation and are unlimited how many years they can go back

Let me clarify Henry, when I say you are wrong. You are absolutely correct when you say the winnings of a professional gambler are taxable. This is true. However, where you are wrong is your opinion that the CRA can prove this easily with the right argument. It's very very hard, if not impossible for the CRA to successfully argue gambling winnings are taxable because the player is a professional.

I went the HARD route going to fed court instead of Tax court. Tax court I would have had an easy win. This is supported in my judgment where TWICE the judge made comments to that effect. He inserted those comments in his decision even though he knew that was not the question at hand in my judgment.

Justice Russell was essentially blatantly saying that I would have won in Tax court as well:

"If I examine and assess all of the factors at play in this case, I might well agree with the Applicant that,
in my opinion, he was not running a business at the material times and was engaged in a personal
endeavour. However, that is not the role of the reviewing Court."

"Had the Applicant made an appeal to the Tax Court he might have succeeded."

Obviously I understand what the Justice is REALLY saying, as I'm the participant, as opposed to an interested reader.

The only winning poker players that would have trouble with the CRA are the famous tourney pro types who have endorsements, and write books, etc.

I think you misunderstood my position -- I don't disagree that the judge alluded that you'd likely be successful in tax court and I don't disagree with him. If CRA was to audit you and reassess you so that the changes from your adjustment were reversed and you went to tax court you would be successful assuming CRA used the arguments they used at the judicial review. It is a losing argument so of course I'd expect CRA to lose and for you to be successful.

My position is that there is a completely different approach that CRA could take that would be successful. If you read the decision (including yours) the court tells CRA what they need to do to win. It is right there in every decision yet CRA for whatever reason keeps using the approach that has been established to be a loser. As long as they keep doing that CRA will be unsuccessful -- when / if CRA switches to the approach the court has told them is necessary they will start winning.

Your online gambling wins might be taxable

Just like poker, IT DEPENDS!

That article is silly.

"The CRA concluded that if the main source of an individual’s income comes from online poker gaming, that is taxable business income, compared to another taxpayer who perhaps has a full-time job yet may be “addicted” to poker in his spare time."

There they go again, using the same out-dated arguments that have not stood up in court.

Haha, that article is absolutely hilarious.

I'm very surprised the author Golombek covered this without noting my judgment, as he already wrote about my judgment and has knowledge of why the opinion CRA is espousing is dead in the water.

Ok, I just read the interpretation. It's the standard cut-and-paste job by some CRA bureaucrat, who wouldn't even be allowed to mention judgments, let alone given advice based on them. This means essentially the interpretation is meaningless for us. It's just the CRA basically just trying to scare people in to giving them money. It's like getting a parking ticket in a city you never plan to visit again.

In most provinces you can't renew your plates if you have unpaid parking tickets -- from a municipality not a private ticket although some of those are getting the same status as municipal parking tickets. I used to just park wherever and I'd accumulate 2-4 tickets a week and never pay them. Then a few weeks before my birthday I'd have to clear them all up because otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to buy my sticker.

For out of province tickets you are ok unless there is a reciprocal agreement between the provinces and for out of country you're fine ignoring them. With both of these you still have to be concerned about possible impact on credit if they send it to collections but I don't know if many municipalities bother.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012...g_tickets.html

Is that another person who took the same stance as Radonjic and the CRA denied their claim? If so, what are the repercussions?

Does that mean that the person who took this stance now has to fight the same court battle Radonjic did?

No and no. As the article indicates, this was simply someone giving a summary of their poker playing activities and asking the CRA for an unofficial "opinion" on whether or not those activities would be considered taxable. It is not at all surprising that, in their "opinion," they set the bar for taxability very low.

As for your other question: the repercussions of having a claim denied are nothing to be fearful about, as far as I know.

The interpretation is literally the message everyone will receive from CRA initially. The CRA will always magically find you taxable.

The process is:

1. File your tax returns or adjustments
2. CRA will send letter to tell you they are auditing you.
3. Auditing consists of an interview with something who doesn't understand poker, and they will take all your documents.
4. Months later they wills end you a letter saying they still find you taxable.
5. You write letter saying "no I'm not"
6. They deny you again.
7. You appeal the decision.
8. The second level review alo finds you taxable.
9. You write a letter to the Audit Division Director.

Then, if the CRA has learned their lesson, they will give up and give you your money back.

If the person who's ass is on the line won't take responsibility for cutting a big cheque then they just pass the buck and say no.

10. Then you go to Tax or Federal Court.

11. Then you win and get your money.

*your experience may vary

Yet another decision in the Anglo-Canadian tax law finding a poker player to not have income from a trade or business:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/530.html

Here is the most relevant bit of the judgment (paragraph 20, from the link above):

On the facts found I do not consider that it can be said that Mr Hakki had a sufficient organisation in his poker playing to make it amount to a trade (or a business) let alone a profession or a vocation. [... The facts were...] (1) that Mr Hakki appeared on television for a few weeks, made the final programme and got a prize (2) that he had his own website and communicated his strategies for online poker (3) that his poker results over 7 or 8 years were published on two other poker websites, (4) that he chose his location (5) that he set a target sum to win after which he stopped and (6) that he selected the table which was most likely to pay him. Even in combination these findings do not to my mind amount to such organisation as to constitute a trade, profession or vocation. The last 3 factors must be common to many successful gamblers. Isolated appearances on television and having one's own website are hardly, these days, evidence of organisation amounting to a trade or profession. There is just no element of what Rowlatt J called "a subject matter which does bear fruit in the shape of profits or gains." There is no "element of fecundity", merely frequent and successful playing at cards.

In these circumstances I am satisfied that, if the First Tier Tribunal had correctly directed themselves in law, they could not have found that Mr Hakki's winnings at gambling were earnings from gainful employment within the MASC Regulations. There would have to be evidence of much more by way of organisation than found by the Tribunal before Mr Hakki could be said to be making earnings from any gainful employment. There was no such evidence in the present case [...]

This is bs.

Poker should never have taxes because of such high variance involved.

You can lose your bankroll you built in 10 years overnight.

Isn't it established in the UK that poker winnings are not taxable, even for the high-profile pros? This particular pro seems to be just trying to avoid child support maintenance on the ground that his poker winnings do not constitute "earnings" from gainful employment.

Many non-poker ventures and startups have a lot of risk and variance. So do investments. If they succeed and make a lot of money should they then be exempt from taxes, because they had risk associated with them?

In the UK even as a pro the winnings would not be taxable -- it is an interesting question of whether something that is not taxable income can nevertheless still be used in the calculations of other obligations that are based on income.

The thing about the child support case is that again the government is using the same argument and they are getting the same result and much like all of our decisions the court points to what the government needs to argue. If CRA should or shouldn't be successful with the current argument is a fun policy debate but for all other purposes it doesn't matter -- the courts have said it is a loser and CRA will continue to lose as long as they use it. It just isn't the only approach to take and the courts are putting a big flashing arrow pointing at what CRA would need to argue to be successful -- I assume eventually CRA will figure that out although it might take them years.

Sorry guys for cutting into your discussion, but maybe you know the answers to my questions.
I am seriously considering to move into Canada and so everything tax-related is of special interest to me.
What is the current situation about tax legislation concerning poker in Canada?
Do I have to file my sources of income to the CRA, pay taxes and how should I do it, if on average I cashout 5k USD/monthly ?
Is it easy to open a debit account in canadian bank for a foreigner ?
Were there any problems with Skrill/Netteller cashouts ?
Any answers would be greatly appreciated!

Cant answer all your questions but skrill does not work in canada. Tax on poker is a debateable subject depending on the situation...

Are you sure Skrill doesn't work in Canada? Netteller does not. Despite originally being a Canadian company they pulled out of Canada years ago. I was fairly certain Skrill/Moneybookers did business in Canada. I am terrible at estimating time but I used them not that long ago.

To answer the questions

1) Don't worry about income tax.

2) You don't file anything -- there is no requirement to file income taxes unless you owe money or you are asked to file by CRA.

3) I have never heard of anyone having any issue opening a bank account.

4) I don't know what a debit account is -- do you mean you want credit like a VISA or MasterCard?

MB/Skrill stopped serving Canadians earlier this year.

I just moved to Vancouver from Cali about 2 weeks ago. You just walk into any bank with 2 forms of ID and a address wherever you are staying and you can open your bank account. Don't worry about skrill and all that. As soon as you open a bank account they will give you a debit card with Visa logo on it right on spot. You send Pokerstars your American drivers license with your bank statement. You can deposit with the card that you will recieve with a option called instadebit or about 8 other options they have lol and they withdraw it straight back to you too. Anyways its a cakewalk. I was overthinking it too before I moved.

Is it a better idea to open 2 bank accounts to be able to split withdrawals/withdraw more?