NO TAX ON BETS

Grey River Argus, 29 May 1925, Page 6

NO TAX ON BETS

“NOT A VOCATION.” Are the gains from private lie's subject to income tax? This point was raised by Air Alexander Graham, sen, of Amersham, Buckinghamshire, who appealed in the High Court last month against an assessment of £3OO in respect <f betting transactions. The Income Tax Commissioners held that betting on horses from his home had been Air Graham’s only means of livelihood, apart from interest on his bunk deposit. Air Graham contended that the fact that he did no! attend race, meetings, that he was not a professional bookmaker, that his bets took place from his own house 'with bookmakers at starting prices, and thel they consisted only of his own private bets exempted him. Mr Barrington Ward, K.G., for Air Graham, said he was not earning profits or income from any trade, profession, employmerd, or vocation. He was merely amusing himself. He was not a professional bookmaker. Betting privately was alien to an employment nr vocation. Tie merely shared m other people’s losses. Mr Justice Rowlatt: I never understand betting. It is more mysterious to me than foreign exchanges, so don’t talk to me about “starting prices.’’ Mr Ward added that although Mr Graham might, have won money on balance, setting his losses against is gains, yet it was nothing more than as if he had won money by playing bridge at his club. The Solicitor-general, Sir Thoma* Inskip, K.C., said the commissioners • found that Mr Graham was engaged in ~ vocation. These were the profits or ■ gains of a vocation which he relied on ■ as a. means of livelihood. The Judge: May a man be taxed on consult Ruff’s Guide. .. qt ,_ Vy T l, e Judge: What m that. M

junior tells me it is the book these profession:il punters <-onsi stently rtfer 1 he Ju<lge: Whet is a ” profession.') I punter ? ’ ’ -!!;<• .Solicitor-general said he was repeating what lie was told. He understood it meant Ihe opposite to a bookmaker. Asked how the Revenue people found out that Mr Graham was doing all this betting, the Solicitor-general said :liey might have noticed the number of telegrams he sent. The Judge; Do you mean that the Post Office revealed to the Revenue that telegrams were being sent?--! do not know. The judge, in upholding the appeal, J said: “Mr Graham was in the habit of I betting on horses at starting prices. J He did it on a. large and sustained | scale, and did it with such shrewdness I th* the made an income out of it, I and it was found that substantially ’ it was his moans of living. Therefore | he has been assessed to income tax in j respect of those emoluments. i ‘‘ X bet is an irrational agreement that a person should pay another person something on the happening of an event. There is no relevance between .the event and the transfer or acquisition of the property. “Tt is said by the Revenue that Mr Graham, by betting continually with great shrewdness and good results, has set up a vocation. The contention is one that might have very startling results, because a loss in a vocation or trade could be set off against profits, and a man earning profits in ( some recognised form of industry, but i having the bad habit of betting systc- < matically with bookmakers, might set | off his losses against the profits for in i come tax purposes—a very remarkable result, and one, lam afraid, with a , very wide application. ; “There arc allowances to a man for • his family and dependants, and we might be threatened with a further allowance in respect of losses he made by habitually betting. s “It sounds remarkable, because, U would entitle O person who wasted Ins earnings on betting to make the Urate a partner in his gambling. The question has to be faced, but I do not flunk that Mr Graham can be said to organise his efforts in the same way that a bookmaker organises his efforts. In effect, all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player of cards. ’ ’