Poker winning in canada

Most people think it is NOT taxable but no one is very sure...
Always been kind of a grey area..

Well the court decided that it is NOT taxable!!

judgemnet is here : http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc916/2013fc916.html

Finaly a CLEAR answer for us canadians!

your country is awesome, congrats

On October 23 2013 22:57 tapatapaz wrote: your country is awesome, congrats

forgot the toronto raptors, pot, seth rogen (and those other actors)




but all of that ^ is negated by bryan adams

i think canada still owes us an apology

holy shit, lol,
wtf @ wolverine?

WTF? this decision is absurd, it basically said that poker is a game of luck

The Minister’s reliance upon Luprypa, above, is misplaced and unreasonable. I see no analogy between a skilful pool player who systematically applied his skills to make money from inebriated opponents and anything the Applicant did in this case where, essentially, his winnings were dependent upon chance, even though he had studied, practised and improved his skills in a way that most amateur poker players do. Everyone who competes in online poker wants to win and will attempt to narrow the odds in their favour in any way they can. But this does not mean they have devised a system if they do win; chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose, as it did on the facts of this case;

suuuure, chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose...

I don't think it should be taxed too, as a player myself, but if the criteria are these that they talk about here, it def should be

is it a game of luck and it must be seen as a game of luck, everywhere, and especially in canada

in canada you dont pay taxes on lotery if you win
or at casino
any LUCK GAME = no taxe

Anyway there is a problem in the judgemnet for poker players

''[13] The Director explains that whether or not a taxpayer is running a business is a question of fact that must be determined in each individual case. In addition, each taxation year stands on its own. Relevant factors in determining if a taxpayer is running a business include hours spent, the degree of personal expertise and overall commitment. In some of the cases relied upon by the Applicant, the Court concludes that the taxpayer was not involved in a business, but it does not automatically flow that all winnings from gambling are not taxable. ''

but the judge destroyed CAR(canada agency revenu) 's arguments so much that we kinda can say it is not taxable xd

On October 24 2013 08:42 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: is it a game of luck and it must be seen as a game of luck, everywhere, and especially in canada in canada you dont pay taxes on lotery if you win or at casino any LUCK GAME = no taxe

I want that too, I'm just saying it isn't true

On October 24 2013 08:45 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: Anyway there is a problem in the judgemnet for poker players

thats not the only problem at all, the whole thing is full of flaws

for example, by meeting these criteria they should be seen as a business:

(a) the degree of organization that is present in the pursuit of this activity by the taxpayer, (b) the existence of special knowledge or inside information that enables the taxpayer to reduce the element of chance, (c) the taxpayer’s intention to gamble for pleasure as compared with any intention to gamble for profit as a means of gaining a livelihood, and (d) the extent of the taxpayer’s gambling activities, including the number and frequency of bets.

poker pros clearly meet these points

those are arguments from CAR destroyed by the judge lol

[52] I say this for the following reasons:

(a) The Minister in this case relied upon the fact of winning and, in effect, conducted the kind of retrospective assessment warned against by Justice Bowman in Leblanc, above, as part of the assessment of reasonable expectation of profit;

(b) The Minister concludes that the Applicant had a “system” but does not provide any meaningful explanation of what this system might be. It looks as though the Applicant’s simply playing online poker on his computer on an intense and regular basis over an extended period of time is equated with a system. This is bolstered by the Leblanc fallacy that, because he happened to win more than he lost during the three years in question, he must have had a system. I see no evidence of the Applicant applying a system in a way that would make this conclusion by the Minister intelligible or reasonable.

(c) The Minister’s reliance upon Luprypa, above, is misplaced and unreasonable. I see no analogy between a skilful pool player who systematically applied his skills to make money from inebriated opponents and anything the Applicant did in this case where, essentially, his winnings were dependent upon chance, even though he had studied, practised and improved his skills in a way that most amateur poker players do. Everyone who competes in online poker wants to win and will attempt to narrow the odds in their favour in any way they can. But this does not mean they have devised a system if they do win; chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose, as it did on the facts of this case;

(d) The method of payment used was no indicator of a “system” or a reasonable expectation of profits. Everyone who wants to pay has to set up some kind of payment system, so this cannot be an indication of running a business. Paypal accounts are used in a variety of contexts where payment is required online;

(e) The Applicant’s cutting back on other work and income while he won at poker is also no indicator of a system or running a business with a reasonable expectation of profit. A large gambling win could result in the winner quitting work entirely, but that would not mean he or she had been running a business. The luxury of being able to work less is one of the fruits of successful gambling, just as having to work more may be one of the results of unsuccessful gambling. Chance dictates the outcome in either case;

(f) The use of winnings to finance a mortgage is no indication of running a business. Winnings can be used in a constructive way. The gambler is not obliged to play until he or she loses, and the use of winnings in this case was no indicator of a system or a business that was being run with a reasonable expectation of profit;

(g) There is no indication that the monitors or other equipment which the Applicant used to gamble in this case were anything special or that the Applicant had made capital investments for the purpose of running a business or earning a profit;

(h) The Applicant’s record keeping was minimal and entirely consistent with the need to prove the source of funds for tax purposes. They were not business records in any meaningful way, and did not even correlate to CRA’s own criteria.

On October 24 2013 09:28 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: those are arguments from CAR destroyed by the judge lol

the arguments in such "destruction" makes no sense at all, just look at my first post

unless you start by assuming poker = luck (which makes no sense at all)

also the arguments from CAR were pretty shitty and missed the point a lot indeed, and thats what was pointed out, but if they were better, they wouldnt be destroyed

dhu yeah poker = luck
ever seen a fish join a game, luckbox a pot and run?
thinking poker is only a game of skill is very retarded
seriously lol

the luck factor isnt as importnat to us than fish or w/e but if you have to take it ''individually''

when we play only the result at the end really mather
lets say you play Fish A he hit n run you lost 100bb lost AA vs KK w/e a suckout
he run
your 100bb are gone
you lost htat money
then you play FISH b and win 120bb
so you areup 20bb
but you are still down 100bb vs fish A but made 120 BB vs fish b
that 100bb ar egone you might be up 20 bb but should be up more!

im griding, hard to explain my tought t.t

and also dont expect me to say its not a game of luck because this it what make poker not taxable in canada
any canadians saying its skill based game is shooting in his own foot

On October 24 2013 09:35 player999 wrote: also the arguments from CAR were pretty shitty and missed the point a lot indeed, and thats what was pointed out, but if they were better, they wouldnt be destroyed

yes
but try to explain what is a ''system'' at poker to win
even you with poker knowledge wouldnt be able to

way to ignore variance

poker has been proved as a game of skill very extensively by specialist all around the world, if you could understand portuguese I could show you a big paper by one of Brazil's top jurists explaining how it is a game of predominant skill

I know poker players can't say it because they're shooting their own foot, I'm just stating what is the actual truth (even though it is in my best interests that they keep fooling themselves)

by your logic football = luck, any crappy team can luckbox a win against Barcelona too

fact that skill is involved doesnt change the fact that is it a game of chance -.-