MONEY FROM GOLF BETS NOT TAXABLE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 112, 13 May 1937, Page 23

MONEY FROM GOLF BETS NOT TAXABLE

The legal arguments which were heard in the case in the Revenue Court of the King's Bench Division in which it was decided by Mr. Justice Lawrence that professional golfers are not liable for income tax on bets they win from opponents are interesting. The hearing was an appeal by the revenue authorities against a decision of the General Commissioners, who had discharged an additional assessment of £1000 made upon Mr. Archie Compston, of the Coombe Hill Golf Club. Sir Donald Somervell, X.C, the Attorney-General, said that the revenue authorities submitted that the £1000 were winnings made during the professional golfer's vocation. If an ordinary person had a bet, either with a friend or a bookmaker, his winnings were not taxable and he could not make deductions for income-tax purposes respecting his losses. With a bookmaker it was different. He made a business of betting and his profits were assessable.

Mr. Raymond Needham, K.C. (for Mr. Archie Compston): There is no authority for that.

Sir Donald Somervell: That is. my submission. Proceeding, he said that in the case before the Court the assessment, which was for the year ended April, 1928, had been made to include (he balance of gains over losses arising out of the private games of golf played by Compston. It was stated that Compston had for more than ten years habitually engaged in private games, principally with amateurs, for bets of varying amounts, the games being played on handicap terms. The matches sometimes took place as dften as three or four times a week and as much as £50 to £100 was sometimes wagered on the result. If Compston were not a professional, but were only a man who played good golf, the position would be different. Even if he then played three or four times a week and made an aggregate, of "about' £1000 a year by bets on his games, it might then be difficult to get'that degree of organisation which brought the case within the "bookmaker principle." It was the connection with Compston's vocation that made his winning taxable. Mr. Needham submitted that it was only looseness of thought which led to' the view tha moneys coming out of bets could be regarded as coming out of a vocation. The bets had no reference to his job. The job merely gave him the opportunity of making them. He was in the same position as the ship's officer who made bets on the ship's run during the day. It could hardly be imagined that the result of that would be regarded as part of the income of the officer for tax purposes.

Mr.'Justice Lawrence, giving judgment, said he thought that the winnings on bets on games of golf played by Cpmpston did not arise from his employment or vocation, and were in no way analogous to gratuities for services rendered. If it were necessary,' he would hold also that there was nothing to support the view that Compston was carrying on a business by betting on those private games.