Taxes in Canada? - Page 6

TorontoCFE · #51 04-05-2007, 02:29 PM

They can't go to Court to clarify without knowing a specific set of facts.

The taxability of poker is entirely dependant on individual circumstances.

TalentedTom · #52 04-05-2007, 02:37 PM

BTW - anyone who lives in TO, can you PM me (and) or post the name / number of a good accounting firm / person* Scarbrough area perferred if possible*

TorontoCFE · #53 04-05-2007, 02:38 PM

The CRA could say "we think they are taxable so please send us 50k" or they can say "maybe they are profits from money laundering so unless you show us otherwise, we want 50k and we'll call the criminal investigation people".

Then it is back in your court

TorontoCFE · #54 04-05-2007, 02:40 PM

Special information can be someone who knows more about a given sitation (odds, insider info, advance knowledge or computer program that does the analysis) than other people would.

Mig · #55 04-05-2007, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Special information can be someone who knows more about a given sitation (odds, insider info, advance knowledge or computer program that does the analysis) than other people would.

[/ QUOTE ]

This point is pretty thin in my opinion. Knowing the odds is simple maths, a 7 years old kid could figure it out. And since I don't know what the other guy cards are I don't think I have special knowledge...

By the way TorontoCFE, do you know if there is anything in court right now or there will be something in the near future regarding that issue ?

2218 · #56 04-05-2007, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Special information can be someone who knows more about a given sitation (odds, insider info, advance knowledge or computer program that does the analysis) than other people would.

[/ QUOTE ]

This point is pretty thin in my opinion. Knowing the odds is simple maths, a 7 years old kid could figure it out. And since I don't know what the other guy cards are I don't think I have special knowledge...

By the way TorontoCFE, do you know if there is anything in court right now or there will be something in the near future regarding that issue ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. A person who knows the odds is more informed than a person who doesn't, but knowing the odds should in no way be considered special information.

As Pog pointed out, it seems like the special information clause is really to target things like sports or race track betting. I think special information is more along the lines of information not easily obtained by others. In this case, poker, IMO, doesn't have any special information whatsoever. Odds are easily accessible to anyone, for one. And the big thing that makes a strong poker player is just highly developed analytical thinking. That few people are such great analytical thinkers does not make it any more special though.

TorontoCFE · #57 04-05-2007, 09:55 PM

The definition of something legally speakin is not alwayswhat you would think when it is intrepreted in law.

I know of a few cases being reviewed but not really close to court yet. Even if case were decided in court, you have no definite way of knowing where you stand unless you had the exact set of circumstances.

TorontoCFE · #58 04-05-2007, 09:57 PM

Years of experience can consititue special knowledge since it is not something someone can easily get an be on even term with someone who has it.
Special knowledge isn't defined so you'd have to hope a judge agree with you if you were selected as a test case.

DavidNB · #59 04-06-2007, 08:25 AM

I always thought that special knowledge could also loosly be viewed as skill. For example, a skilled blackjack player has an advantage over a non skilled one.

Of courser I only wished I had the problem of too much poker income (LOL)

myst1 · #60 05-29-2007, 02:57 AM

Hey guys, I posted in an older thread but I lost track of it. I'm in the same situation as most of you, only I'm probably a bigger target for the CRA. My profits last year were around $1 million, and this year a little over $2.5 million. There are my first 2 years of professional play, and most of it is easily trackable because they are live tournament winnings.

I contacted a well known tax lawyer here in Ottawa, and gave him all of the details, and he concluded that I should not be taxed. That should stop me from ever being charged with negligence, is that correct?

Also, my financial advisor told me to incorporate myself, which I did, and we moved all of the funds into my business account, and then into my current investment portfolio. We are submitting our case to the CRA, so that we get a decisive ruling right away.

My financial advisor has tried to assure me that even if they decide to tax me, I will end up having to pay very little taxes, after making investments in flow-through shares and other tax-credit investments.

I'm still a little worried though. Does anyone with knowledge in the field see any holes in my plan? My last resort would be to detach myself from Canada and become a non-resident for 6 months plus a day, and then my earnings for 2007 would be non-taxable. Is there a minimum number of years I would have to stay out of Canada before I could return?

Sorry for the long post.