“NOBLEMAN’S BETS”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18207, 30 September 1933, Page 12

“NOBLEMAN’S BETS”

DISCLOSURES IN COURT WAGERS <>\ AMOUNIS IN("OA! il TAX DISPUTE SYDNEY, Sept. 16. Casual rnciuion o; such weeiu-mkiug bets as £3500 to £IOCO, £4030 lo £2OOO. £9OO lo £3OO. on Amounis- and all when. Amounis won—was made in .No, 6 .jury Court to-day, when tile well known A.bookmaker, Ernest, Wall \ andeuPorg, appealed against amended asses,>moots of the Taxation Commissioner lor tlm years 192? to 1930. “These sort of bets are what we rail ‘a lioblemaii’s bets. ’ declared 0110 bookmaker, when recollecting another winning bet of £ooo lo £2OO. “It still is a painful recollection, that bet. he added, as he. looked rtielully at a painting of the famed Amounis, that graces the court, to its enlightenment!

“1 would suffer from heart failure T think, if 1 had such bets,” laugher Air. Justice Halsc Rogers.

James John Hackott, a retired bookmaker, said he had taken bets against Amounis from Vandenberg —one was £9OO to £3OO in the Cantala Stakes oh 1929. Amounis won, and so did Van-' denberg. Mr. Dovey. counsel for the Taxation Commissioner: When were you asked to recollect this bet?

Witness : Last night. 1 can recollect ibis particular wager because, when the horse was 2 to 1, the mother of Vandenberg came along and wanted me to lav £2OOO to £IOOO.

“Now, that was a pretty large bet,” added witness, “ami 1 had to give some answer pretty quick. 1 told her I could not take it. because her son had taken £9OO to £3OO. Finally, 1 laid a bet of £2OOO to £IOOO. “T’ll never forget that race and its incidents,” said Hackott, “because I lost more in the field on that race than on any other race in my life.” Mr. Dovey: That is saying something exceedingly great. Air. liaokett: You have said it right. Arthur James Matthews said he was a bookmaker. “(’HOPPED HER BETS” fu the Williamstown Cup of 1928, said Matthews, he laid Vandenberg £6OO to £2OO against Amounis —and lost.

Matthews said lie took a bet from Mrs. Vandenberg on Amounis when the horse was running in Melbourne. “I think it was £SOO to something,” he added. Mr. Dovey: Not £IOOO.

Mtthews: No fear. 1 was a hit scared of her, as she always was so successful. .1 generally chopped her bets in half. (Laughter). In an affidavit, William Cosino Alldritt, a registered bookmaker, said lie paid £3500 to Vandenberg when he won a bet of £3500 to £IOOO against Amounis in the A.J.C. Epsom of 1928. It was a substantial wager, lie said. The case for the appellant was closed.

The appeal was against taxes approximating £4OOO on income which the Commissioner of Taxation claimed should have been included in his returns.

j Vandenberg claimed that the amounts in dispute represented money won by j him in backing Amounis, but the bets : were purely speculative and did not form part of bis capital as a registered ; bookmaker. i Answering the judge, Mr. Dovey said [ that £4OOO was shown in the returns as assessable income and the commissioner alleged that assets had increased by more than £17.000. He thus formed the opinion that the taxpayer had not been stating his income, so he asked the taxpayer where he got the money. The, taxpayer replied: “1 haven’t got any books, and, as a matter of fact, my bank pass hook does not reflect my business. .1 made my returns from my fiield books, which I .destroyed. The. commissioner then ■ said: “1 don’t accept your story. 1 sav you earned your income in your business as a belting man. If that is challenged then the onus is on Tim appellant to show that it is not income.

Respondent to succeed, said Mr. Dovey, must negative "the commissioner’s inference that the moneys were gains and earnings from his business in the racing game. The judge: Do l understand you to hold that, in the case of a, bookmaker indulging in betting on his own account, the proceeds of his successful bets are taxable income? Mr. Dovey: Yes. if lie mixes the accounts and makes bets systematically and periodically. 1. say. too, that the bets are taxable, even if they are made illegally. Why, bootlegging has been held to he taxable.

‘•SYSTEMS WORKED OUT” The judge: That is why, 1 believe, a certain notorious gentleman is now in gaol. I find, too, that the Taxation Commissioner holds that a starting price bookmaker must pay taxes on ms profits, as far as the commissioner can reasonably discover the profits. Mr. I)ov,ey said that the ease for respondents would be that the profit from laying and taking bets by appellant was subject to taxation because, it wa s the result of systematic or organised effort in a profit-waking venture. “Why,” be added “we have the fact, sworn to by appellant, that be made the hots on the information of persons in the best position to judge. t)t course, there was a. risk even in that information.” “I will show,” added Mr. Dovey, “that there was an organisation, a system, and a scheme properly worked out. “Even if Your Honor finds affirmatively that he was carrying on Urn business' of making bets, nevertheless appellant must fail because it was a profitmaking venture.” The hearing was adjourned.