Canadian legislation

[SpicFaLife]

TorontoCFE,

as someone mentioned above Canadian law resembles UK law more than american law. What do you make of the recent UK court decision that pronounced poker a game of chance, not of skill? with regards to tax implications for Canadians.

[DonJ]

[ QUOTE ]
TorontoCFE,

as someone mentioned above Canadian law resembles UK law more than american law. What do you make of the recent UK court decision that pronounced poker a game of chance, not of skill? with regards to tax implications for Canadians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the lawmakers are completely ignorant and would lose to appeal. Poker is no more a game of chance than chess is a game of chance. The game of poker just takes longer to prove itself out.

How the heck do you draw a connection of a rediculous British court ruling to Canadian tax law?!!

[TheJokerIsWild]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TorontoCFE,

as someone mentioned above Canadian law resembles UK law more than american law. What do you make of the recent UK court decision that pronounced poker a game of chance, not of skill? with regards to tax implications for Canadians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the lawmakers are completely ignorant and would lose to appeal. Poker is no more a game of chance than chess is a game of chance. The game of poker just takes longer to prove itself out.

How the heck do you draw a connection of a rediculous British court ruling to Canadian tax law?!!

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I definitely don't agree that poker is the same as chess. There is ZERO luck involved in chess.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TorontoCFE,

as someone mentioned above Canadian law resembles UK law more than american law. What do you make of the recent UK court decision that pronounced poker a game of chance, not of skill? with regards to tax implications for Canadians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the lawmakers are completely ignorant and would lose to appeal. Poker is no more a game of chance than chess is a game of chance. The game of poker just takes longer to prove itself out.

How the heck do you draw a connection of a rediculous British court ruling to Canadian tax law?!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you don't get random pieces in a chess match.

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
TorontoCFE,

as someone mentioned above Canadian law resembles UK law more than american law. What do you make of the recent UK court decision that pronounced poker a game of chance, not of skill? with regards to tax implications for Canadians.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Canada does the same thing, then poker winnings will be tax free under the windfall clause.

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is no more a game of chance than chess is a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is funny no matter how many times I read it. This argument only works for winners. Losers wont argue the same case. Chance is involved in every hand of poker, just because you play better than the next guy doesnt mean [censored] when they look for skill/luck comparison.

[DavidNB]

in the short term poker has more luck to it but long term poker is a game of skill. A new player could own a pro on any given night, but put the same players against each other nite after nite and the pro would always come out on top over the long run.

[jonnycanada]

It's not "legal". It is an unknown. Gambling outside of licensed casinos with a house rake is illegal. The question is where is internet gambling taking place? Location of server or location of player?

In order to ban it, they would have to arrest someone and hear the issue in court, or enact legislation specifically addressing it.

The government is not into spending the time, energy and cash to try and catch an online poker player, when it isn't even certain they are breaking a law. So under existing law and circumstances, it is unlikely to be heard in the courts.

Further, I whole heartedly agree with big e, that the relations with the First Nations is a huge deterent for the Canadian government to legislate against it.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TorontoCFE,

as someone mentioned above Canadian law resembles UK law more than american law. What do you make of the recent UK court decision that pronounced poker a game of chance, not of skill? with regards to tax implications for Canadians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the lawmakers are completely ignorant and would lose to appeal. Poker is no more a game of chance than chess is a game of chance. The game of poker just takes longer to prove itself out.

How the heck do you draw a connection of a rediculous British court ruling to Canadian tax law?!!

[/ QUOTE ]

There was another thread where somebody talked about how the UK ruling would set a precedent for Canada. Some people think we're still a colony.

As in interesting tidbit the other day (ok maybe like a year ago) I found the requirements for registering a .ca web domain. Being the Queen (and maybe any member of the Royal Family) is one possible way to be allowed to register a .ca domain.

I thought it was funny.

[TorontoCFE]

I don't see any changes.

Since poker can technically be taxable to a few (likely the biggest longterm winners), the government would rather call it a game of skil and thus taxable to at least some vs a game of chance and taxable to none.

Canada would more likely follow the UK common law but faces pressure from the US so it is tough to say.

It is odd because there are a lot of people in CRA trying to figure out how to get their hands on a portion of the gaming action and they don't know how to proceed, whether to grab some tax cash at the expense of long court challenges and admin effort and whether to legitimize the industry to make taxation easier but risk offending allies and open the flood gates to more gaming.

The government has a constant dilemma that McGuinty talked about. They would rather there be no legal gaming of any kind but they are addicted to the tax revenue.

I see notihng changing, but then my ears perked up when I read the government taking a strong psoition. That may mean action coming because we all know the governments don't commit to anything unless they have to.