LUCKY TURF BETTING

Taranaki Daily News, 18 October 1933, Page 5

LUCKY TURF BETTING

BOOKMAKER AS “PUNTER” SPECULATION AT RANDWICK. £16,000 WON IN FOUR YEARS. A remarkable story of the success of an Australian bookmaker—not in the laying of odds, but as a “punter” at Randwick, was told recently in a case that came before the Supreme Court in Sydney. The man concerned is Ernest Wall Vandenberg, who was registered as a bookmaker by the Australian Racing Club. He was not registered by the Australian Jockey Club, and therefore his operations at Randwick were confined to the backing of horses. The matter has come up in the form of a dispute with the Taxation Commissioner, who claims that an extra £4OOO is due to the department as income tax on account of Vandenberg’s winnings in the four years 1927-30. In these years, Vandenberg received the sums of £3500, £lOOO, £7OOO and* £5050, which were not taken into account in his taxation returns.

Vandenberg’s argument is that the bets were purely speculative investments by reason of his special knowledge of < horses’ chances and that the money he speculated with was from his private resources and did not form part of his capital as a bookmaker. For these reasons his counsel contended that the gains should be treated like “speculative profits made on the Stock Exchange” atjd not as assessable for income tax. Counsel for the Taxation Commissioner maintained that such a system of . bet--, ting, based upon “the information of persons in the best position to judge,’’ must be regarded as a “profit-making venture," and therefore that the profits are subject to taxation. Vandenberg, according to the story told, made practically all the money by backing one horse—Amounis. The basis of those operations was admittedly “information received,” and Mr. W. Pearson, owner of Amounis, gave evidence confirming Vandenberg’s statements. Pearson said he had been a friend of the Vandenberg family for a long time and had known Ernest “ever since he was a little boy.” He had made a point of giving the latter first-hand information about Amounis and his chances. Vandenberg stated that he had backed Amounis on 22 occasions when he won. Once, he said, he backed Amounis for the Williamstown Cup at 3 to'l—he put bn £609 and won £lBOO. On another occasion he made “the biggest bet of his life,” backing Amounis with Alldritt, another bookmaker. “Alldritt stood under- . 'neath a tree,” he said, “and he called 7 to 2 the field. I said to him I will have a monkey (£500) on Bill, and he challenged me again.” So Vandenberg put £lOOO on at 7 to 2, and as. Amounis won, he got £3500 for his venture. Van-, denberg said he offered afterwards to give Pearson half of his bet, but the owner of Amounis declined. The evidence showed that Vandenberg was aided in his speculative activities by his mother.

When Mr. John James Hackett, once a well-known bookmaker, was called, he stated that in 1929 he laid a bet of three to one with Vandenberg—£9oo '■> £3oo—- — course, against Amounis. He recalled “the mother of this boy coming up when the horse was two to one and saying, ‘I will have £4OOO to £2000.’ Hackett said, T can’t do that, because I have just laid your son £9OO to £3OO, and the best I can lay you is £ r )00 to £looo.’ Mrs. Vandenberg todk it, and Amounis won. Hackett remarked, ‘I lost more in fielding in that race than on any other race in my career.’ ” The case was adjourned for further argument.