Aussie Taxes?

[Fred]

Do any Aussies know what the tax law situation in Australia is relating to income made from betting on sports?

AV2, boris, anyone else?

[AussieVamp2]

Winnings are not taxable.

Sportsbooks etc. are taxed already.

Unless, presumably, you were silly enough to declare yourself a professional?

[Fred]

Thanks for responding AV2

Who decides the definition of ‘professional’? The ATO or the punter?

Could someone make 40K (not me yet), call it a hobby, not be taxed and stay sweet with the law?

Does it really come down to self-definition?

[AussieVamp2]

as far as I know

you would have to decide to declare yourself one as far as I can tell

I saw this once before

Here you go, that will be around $500 legal fees for research

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.ht.../NAT/ATO/00001

[This message has been edited by AussieVamp2 (edited 03-25-2000).]

[boris]

It's something that the govt doesn't get involved in too much from an income tax perspective. You'd only pay interest on the winnings in your bank accounts, unless that's exclusively what you did (gambling).

I love a sunburnt country, the truly 'land of the free'.......

[Fred]

There seems to be some ambiguity about this.

"The Court said that the principal criteria for determining whether gambling constitutes a business include the following : whether gambling is conducted in a systematic, organised and businesslike way; the volume and size of the gambling; whether the is related to, or part of, other activities of a businesslike character e.g., breeding horses; and whether the gambler appears to engage in his or her activity principally for profit or principally for pleasure".

Surely there are some people who gamble "principally for profit" making their living gambling -- which must involve them being "organised", "systematic" and "businesslike".

But I notice the ruling says that "There is no Australian case in which the winnings of a mere punter have been held to be assessable (or the losses deductible)."

So I guess it would take a huge precedent to change that.

Seems to me they could get someone if they wanted to but possibly don't want to because it would open the way for anyone to pretend being "organised" etc and claim losses as a deduction.

Thanks both for your thoughts