Taxes in Canada?

[2218]

[ QUOTE ]

(c) If you have no other money coming in, how do you intend on buying food? By purchasing stuff from your gambling wins. If you could somehow justify that your expenses can be accounted for WITHOUT any gambling income, I'd buy this argument. However, since you have no other income coming in, this feels like crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I argue that I'm not working because of the money I have rather than the money expect to make? As long as I don't blow [censored] loads of money, my essentials will be covered. So why can't I give myself a vacation from work?

Obviously this argument could only last so long...

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(c) If you have no other money coming in, how do you intend on buying food? By purchasing stuff from your gambling wins. If you could somehow justify that your expenses can be accounted for WITHOUT any gambling income, I'd buy this argument. However, since you have no other income coming in, this feels like crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I argue that I'm not working because of the money I have rather than the money expect to make? As long as I don't blow [censored] loads of money, my essentials will be covered. So why can't I give myself a vacation from work?

Obviously this argument could only last so long...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't work if the money you have came from gambling though, would it?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(c) If you have no other money coming in, how do you intend on buying food? By purchasing stuff from your gambling wins. If you could somehow justify that your expenses can be accounted for WITHOUT any gambling income, I'd buy this argument. However, since you have no other income coming in, this feels like crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I argue that I'm not working because of the money I have rather than the money expect to make? As long as I don't blow [censored] loads of money, my essentials will be covered. So why can't I give myself a vacation from work?

Obviously this argument could only last so long...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't work if the money you have came from gambling though, would it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would...

You can hit the lottery for $5 million, pay no taxes, and live off that money tax-free. You can also decide (by your own choice) to keep buying more lottery while living off that gambling win. No one's expecting to hit the next 5 mil, but they can always choose to keep trying. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I can see why there's not much of a case against the non-taxpaying poker player. As we (2+2ers) know, people can have all the organizational systems they want for lotteries (following previous winning numbers, recording wins and losses, etc.) but they will NEVER be winning professionals. Until the skill level of poker is absolutely proven, there's nothing concrete to use as precedence.

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(c) If you have no other money coming in, how do you intend on buying food? By purchasing stuff from your gambling wins. If you could somehow justify that your expenses can be accounted for WITHOUT any gambling income, I'd buy this argument. However, since you have no other income coming in, this feels like crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I argue that I'm not working because of the money I have rather than the money expect to make? As long as I don't blow [censored] loads of money, my essentials will be covered. So why can't I give myself a vacation from work?

Obviously this argument could only last so long...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't work if the money you have came from gambling though, would it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would...

You can hit the lottery for $5 million, pay no taxes, and live off that money tax-free. You can also decide (by your own choice) to keep buying more lottery while living off that gambling win. No one's expecting to hit the next 5 mil, but they can always choose to keep trying. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I can see why there's not much of a case against the non-taxpaying poker player. As we (2+2ers) know, people can have all the organizational systems they want for lotteries (following previous winning numbers, recording wins and losses, etc.) but they will NEVER be winning professionals. Until the skill level of poker is absolutely proven, there's nothing concrete to use as precedence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, for b, special information is more than likely referring to someone who's cheating.

[teh_mewse]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why there's not much of a case against the non-taxpaying poker player. As we (2+2ers) know, people can have all the organizational systems they want for lotteries (following previous winning numbers, recording wins and losses, etc.) but they will NEVER be winning professionals. Until the skill level of poker is absolutely proven, there's nothing concrete to use as precedence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if i agree with this or not (but i know very little on the subject). I would agree that if you claimed innocence, it would be very difficult for the government to prove otherwise. But isn't that the complete opposite case here? In canada, aren't you innocent until proven guilty EXCEPT with taxes? Aren't you guilty until PROVEN innocent? If thats the case, it would be equally hard to DISPROVE their accusations. Thoughts?

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can see why there's not much of a case against the non-taxpaying poker player. As we (2+2ers) know, people can have all the organizational systems they want for lotteries (following previous winning numbers, recording wins and losses, etc.) but they will NEVER be winning professionals. Until the skill level of poker is absolutely proven, there's nothing concrete to use as precedence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if i agree with this or not (but i know very little on the subject). I would agree that if you claimed innocence, it would be very difficult for the government to prove otherwise. But isn't that the complete opposite case here? In canada, aren't you innocent until proven guilty EXCEPT with taxes? Aren't you guilty until PROVEN innocent? If thats the case, it would be equally hard to DISPROVE their accusations. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough question.

I'm not sure how it works normally (I think you're right) or how it would work in this situation (I think it may be different).

If I own a business and the government says 'we have reason to believe you owe $10m more', then it's probably on me to show them they're wrong.

If I play poker and the government says, 'we see $100k in deposits that you did not report on your taxes' and you respond, 'oh, that was untaxable gambling winnings', is it back on them?

[Mig]

I met a fiscalist/lawyer from a big firm where I live and he said that they could have a strong case against that being taxable, in the case it went to court.

I don't remember all of his arguments but for 1 he said that since the law regarding that issue is so unclear and it is mainly a state of facts, that makes it difficult for the CRA to come after the winners. Since the winners they would want to see taxed are probably only the big ones and that they compose like maybe 5%-10% of the total gambling pool and the rest or marginal winners or losers, it would be hard for them to tax the winners... The point is that under these 4 items stated in posts above, a big losers (who won for a while and then lost a big chunk of his winnings and more) could try to write off his losses and I'm sure the CRA wouldn't want that to happen. Basically you see that situation all the time, a bad player climb the ladder and keep winning for so long and bust his ass and even more at the top. So first year he would have to write off as a winner and then he could write off big losses for 2-3 years? I dunno if it makes sense the way I wrote it but when we talked about it (2 hours session) I thought he could be right.

Sorry for my bad English, if there is anything that you can't understand feel free to point at it, I will try to re-explain my point.

[2218]

[ QUOTE ]
I met a fiscalist/lawyer from a big firm where I live and he said that they could have a strong case against that being taxable, in the case it went to court.

I don't remember all of his arguments but for 1 he said that since the law regarding that issue is so unclear and it is mainly a state of facts, that makes it difficult for the CRA to come after the winners. Since the winners they would want to see taxed are probably only the big ones and that they compose like maybe 5%-10% of the total gambling pool and the rest or marginal winners or losers, it would be hard for them to tax the winners... The point is that under these 4 items stated in posts above, a big losers (who won for a while and then lost a big chunk of his winnings and more) could try to write off his losses and I'm sure the CRA wouldn't want that to happen. Basically you see that situation all the time, a bad player climb the ladder and keep winning for so long and bust his ass and even more at the top. So first year he would have to write off as a winner and then he could write off big losses for 2-3 years? I dunno if it makes sense the way I wrote it but when we talked about it (2 hours session) I thought he could be right.

Sorry for my bad English, if there is anything that you can't understand feel free to point at it, I will try to re-explain my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, are you saying that the government could make a strong case for poker being taxable, but it wouldn't bother because of all the complications it entails?

[pyedog]

The thing is that smart people who don't play poker just can't understand how it could be possible to beat it consistantly in the long run. Have you guys ever told other smart people that you're a winning poker player? They tend to look at you funny. I know that two years ago I would have refused to believe it, and to be honest I'm still a bit skeptical even after two years as a winning player at low limits. I still can't comprehend where all the money is coming from, especially for higher stakes players.

So how is a judge going to rule that there is a winning system possible in poker and that it can beaten through being "organized"? Unless he has played a lot of poker how will he know that these earnings aren't just due to luck? For example in my case I've played for two years and never had a losing month. But that alone isn't proof that I'm a winning player. It could just be a statistical anomoly and I'll end up losing for 24 consecutive months. In fact if the games get tougher and all the high stakes regulars decide to move down to my games as a lark then I'll be certain to lose.

However, that said, if any online poker player with an upper middle class salary gets investigated by the CRA he probably won't be able to afford the legal fees to try to fight this case and argue these points. I know that if I get hassled I'll probably just pay the taxes instead of trying to hire a lawyer, which will probably end up costing more and might fail anyways.

[Mig]

[ QUOTE ]


Just to be clear, are you saying that the government could make a strong case for poker being taxable, but it wouldn't bother because of all the complications it entails?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I meant was, the lawyer/fiscalist I spoke to said he had a lot of arguments to defend the position that poker is not taxable.

I wonder if it would be possible and even best for the Canadian community to have a lawyer go into court and ask for a statement from the court. You know what I mean ? It's clear to me that in the near future someone will have to face the CRA with that question and it's kinda unfair to that 1 individual to pay for all that... It's such a grey area. Half people say white and the other half say black, who has the right answer...