RACECOURSE WINNINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 191, 12 August 1921, Page 5

RACECOURSE WINNINGS.

OWNERS ESCAPE TAXATION. £600.000 PAYS £6000. L'nder the heading of "Tuppenny Ha'penny Taxation," the - 'X.Z. Times" has a vigorous article on the subject of tihe 'taxation of owners' racecourse winnings from stakes. "That there aire grave anomalies and inconsistencies involved in the incidence •of taxation goes without saying/ , says ■the writer. "Probably one of the most serious of thf\*c lhas boon brought conspicuously within the range of public attention by the publication of the list of Winning owners for the racing season just closed. The aggregate of winnings paid away in stokes to xlie fortunate owners amoi-nts to the substantial total of considerably more than £600,000-" A list of owners—over fifty—nho received in stakes anything from £2000 to £11.000 is giiven, a,nd it is mentioned bliat there were a further fortunate 200 who wcTe paid below £2000 and a.bove £500. T/lie oroly State taxation on .thesw amounts is'lo per cent, imposed by the Act of 1015. ''If this list is carefully examined," states the '•'Times" writer, "it will be observed that many of these fortunate winners are wealthy magnates who would be required to pay graduated income tax apart from their racecourse earnings. Wily, he asks, should the Douglas Estate, with its £11,430, or Mr. \V. G. Stead, with his £9300, or Sir George Clifford, with his £8306, escape with an income tax of twopence halfpenny in the £ on winnings from sport, wnen the man strenuously engaged in the development of the country or in the increase of production is taxed to the extent of 8/9 in the £, plus land tax? The conundrum is too much for us." We quote the concluding portion of the article at length as follows: "We give it up. The argument has been employed, in justification of this palpable absurdity, that the Government I imposes a heavy tax upon totalisator inj vestments. This may be perfectly true. I But the racehorse owner does not pay one single penny of this tax. It is a tax imposed on the totalisator investor, meaning the general public, and is deducted from his winnings. It would be just as logical to say that the draper or the grocer should not be levied upon for income tax because the goods he sells j have paid Customs duty. The further argument has been employed in defence of this favoured treatment that the racI ing owner is put to considerable expense in earning his income from winnings. j This is not disputed- At the same time, we have hitherto been under the impression that the wealthy owner engaged in racing for the purpose of sport and not as a business. However, if he desires his sport to be regarded as a business occupation and not a a pastime, theit. is no reason whatever why he should not show his expenditure on the taxation forms just as other business men do and secure the set-off he may be entitled to against his earnings. He certainly should be required to add his net income from racing to his income from othei sources and pay graduated income tax accordingly. The existing system of .let ting him off with a paltry twopence half penny in the £ when people engaged ir commerce and industry are compelled t< pay up to 8/0 in the £, plus land tax, is preposterous. Even the working mai who indulges his family with an eveninj at the 'movies' is proportionately, mucl more heavily taxed for this modes luxury than is the winning racing ownei with all his wealth and advantages. ThL is indefensible.' .