Citizen Walsh - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Citizen Walsh - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Citizen Walsh  (Read 61120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-16, 06:12 PM Reply #50 »
A winning punter would display all of the above traits (other than the breeding horses line), a loser nearly none of them.

In other words, we want to tax winners and not losers.

They can go and get well and truly f****d if they want to base it on the above as far as i'm concerned.

Yes,

most winning punters would display the (non breeding) traits.

Trouble is,

those traits are also claimed and displayed by big losers!


For me the biggest pleasure in this caper  is observing those insufferable, abrasive, sociopathic or criminal wannabes portraying themselves as professionals, with their tails between their legs, doing the walk of shame!

Offline Dark Target

  • Class6
  • User 1667
  • Posts: 90
« 2012-Jul-16, 07:02 PM Reply #51 »
Yes,

most winning punters would display the (non breeding) traits.

Trouble is,

those traits are also claimed and displayed by big losers!


For me the biggest pleasure in this caper  is observing those insufferable, abrasive, sociopathic or criminal wannabes portraying themselves as professionals, with their tails between their legs, doing the walk of shame!


Spot on!!

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-17, 07:17 AM Reply #52 »
Didn't notice too many Weekend AFRs at Wentworth Park on my last visit, so maybe this industry article will raise awareness of the Walsh saga for this demographic.

http://www.australianracinggreyhound.com/australian-greyhound-racing/greyhound-betting-australian-greyhound-racing/look-after-the-golden-goose/35223

Fence sitting seems to be a habit for the author.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-24, 04:13 AM Reply #53 »
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3551796.htm


"DAVID WALSH: Well, you know, I don't know, I'm not an expert on law, but according to their definition, no. You know, we don't try to minimise the risk, we don't keep records, we don't employ staff, we don't do, you know.

And, you know, if winning money makes you a business, which is fundamentally what it boils down to because, you know, there are people that are just as organised as us that win and lose, you know, then they're going to have problems with a lot of other potential claims for losses. "


Don't keep records?

That accomplishment certainly makes them genii.


Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2012-Jul-24, 09:54 AM Reply #54 »
What a load of nonsense that was.

Pity there wasn't a contribution from TAS TAB.

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8132
« 2012-Jul-24, 11:26 AM Reply #55 »
A few points from his interview Walsh said ......"  Before MONA existed, they knew how much we were winning ...
You know, we don't try to minimise the risk, we don't keep records, we don't employ staff, we don't do, you know....
We got lucky and we, over the Cup period, I think won about I think $16 or $17 million, which kept this place on the agenda"

How did the ATO know how much they had won and how does he know how much he won when Shocking won the Cup if they never kept records ?
If records were not kept how were the profits distributed amongst the multitude of beneficiaries of the operation ?

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8132
« 2012-Jul-24, 11:31 AM Reply #56 »
What a load of nonsense that was.

Pity there wasn't a contribution from TAS TAB.

Maybe TAS TAB ( Tattsbet today ) should takeover MONA as the money they paid out in rebates covered a fair proportion of the cost of setting up MONA, then they will have a continuing cash flow from the gallery & its associated businesses. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Offline Jules Winnfield

  • Class 4
  • User 672
  • Posts: 44
« 2012-Jul-24, 11:35 AM Reply #57 »
my goldfish would be smart enough to work out that they keep records

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-25, 05:19 AM Reply #58 »
http://blogs.abc.net.au/tasmania/2012/07/david-walsh-v-the-australian-taxation-office.html

Audio on:

"Leon followed the story in a conversation with former ATO tax audit manager and tax consultant Chris Seague."

Why is this the sole media to date to refer to the impropriety and inanity of Bob Brown's bizarre balderdash?

Offline Dark Target

  • Class6
  • User 1667
  • Posts: 90
« 2012-Jul-25, 09:45 AM Reply #59 »
In your opinion JFC, was Woods riding the coat tails of those much smarter than he was?

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-25, 09:55 AM Reply #60 »
In your opinion JFC, was Woods riding the coat tails of those much smarter than he was?

There is objective evidence that Woods was a sharp guy.

His first wife Meredith who later represented Australia in Bridge, obviously had a good idea how smart he was, and has endorsed him.

Zeljko and Benter are also obviously sharp, going on Woods' recommendation.

I haven't found any objective support for Walsh.

I suspect they all milked academic maths experts for priceless formulae.

There are allegations that all stole one anothers' intellectual property, so that muddies the picture.



Offline Dark Target

  • Class6
  • User 1667
  • Posts: 90
« 2012-Jul-25, 10:14 AM Reply #61 »
Certainly from various posts I've read of his in different forums he doesn't come across as a genius... Hardly a basis to judge him though.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12326
« 2012-Jul-25, 10:04 PM Reply #62 »
Ross Greenwood had a piece tonight on the 2GB about David Walsh, podcast not up yet though.

Basically the (evil) ATO was chasing the art loving citizen  :rolleyes:

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8132
« 2012-Jul-26, 09:19 AM Reply #63 »
The PR campaign by Walsh to demonise the ATO seems to be never ending. The ABC, Bob Brown, Andrew Wilkie, Ross Greenwood ( Honeywill ?).....next he will wheel out Malcolm Fraser or Gough Whitlam. Have any of those people questioned the financial performance of Tote Tasmania, before it was taken over by Tatts, and asked, as Julius Sumner once said, " why is it so ?"
« Last Edit: 2012-Jul-26, 11:07 AM by Bubbasmith »

Offline Mullerbeck

  • Group3
  • User 243
  • Posts: 893
« 2012-Jul-26, 10:52 AM Reply #64 »
I was reading the article on SMH. It is downright embarassing, just because he built a museum, he is now considered Saint and above taxation laws in this country. I just cannot believe the cheek of it.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/support-floods-in-for-mona-founder-in-tax-row-20120725-22oy5.html



Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8132
« 2012-Jul-26, 11:30 AM Reply #65 »
It is obvious none of the people "batting" for Walsh have any understanding of betting and the modus operandi of the operation. Most are 'arty' types, who are bemoaning the predicament of MONA if he is taken to the cleaners by the ATO. What about all the punters,who have been taken to cleaners by the leg up he received by rebates over all other punters, not just back to the ATO assessment to 2006, but all the previous years dating back to the VITAB  in Vanuatu ?

Offline Dark Target

  • Class6
  • User 1667
  • Posts: 90
« 2012-Jul-26, 11:37 AM Reply #66 »
If he is truthful in what he is saying about the ATO's ruling in the past, I don't think he should have to pay them back.

But i fail to see what the relevance of him owning a museum is in his defence? Who cares if the bloke owns a museum or if he cant pay the money back, THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT ffs.

Offline Mullerbeck

  • Group3
  • User 243
  • Posts: 893
« 2012-Jul-26, 11:40 AM Reply #67 »
If he is truthful in what he is saying about the ATO's ruling in the past, I don't think he should have to pay them back.


Generally the rule is that ATO comment on the issue as it is presented to them. If they discover that either the facts were not presented correctly or the situation has changed since then, Private rulings are considered void. As an account myself, I find staggering they claim they were hobby punters v running a business.

Offline The Aussie Bricklayer

  • Open
  • User 481
  • Posts: 122
« 2012-Jul-26, 12:03 PM Reply #68 »
I would not be surprised if they have run at a small loss on the actual bets over the last ten years, but have been paid a fortune in rebates over the last 10 years. If this is true, then no income tax would be payable on their betting activities.

In my opinion, the rebates would be taxable, as this would be classed as income.

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12326
« 2012-Jul-26, 01:16 PM Reply #69 »


In my opinion, the rebates would be taxable, as this would be classed as income.

I sent an e-mail to Ross Greenwood on that point, I'm far from o fay with tax laws  :shy: but to me the rebates would be an income  :chin:

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-26, 01:31 PM Reply #70 »
I concur with the above, which happens to align with my ideas on the subject.

Treating Kickbacks as income is a neat way of taxing big players without incurring the risk of losses being claimed.

Hopefully it would kill the Kickback travesty, which no sane player needs.

The desirable solution is to drop the obscene rakes for everyone.

In practice there could be a threshhold of (say) 2% before Kickbacks kick in as income.

That would easily allow for modest loyalty bonuses to rank and file punters.

Yet hamper Double Digit DZeljko.
« Last Edit: 2012-Jul-26, 01:40 PM by jfc »

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 8132
« 2012-Jul-26, 04:42 PM Reply #71 »
Treating Kickbacks as income is a neat way of taxing big players without incurring the risk of losses being claimed.

If the ATO adopts that approach, they will cover all bases for negating "claims for losses" by losing punters .

Offline assumethecrown

  • Class 4
  • User 241
  • Posts: 48
« 2012-Jul-26, 05:47 PM Reply #72 »
Treating Kickbacks as income is a neat way of taxing big players without incurring the risk of losses being claimed.

If the ATO adopts that approach, they will cover all bases for negating "claims for losses" by losing punters .

The ATO may look into taxing rebates however any income(or losses) from the actual betting have to be considered also.  They are a function of one another.

Example - Player A gambles $1million dollars for the year and recieves a 5% rebate.
              He loses $150,000 on his outlay and recieves $50,000 in kickbacks leaving a net loss of $100,000 for the year.
              I seriously doubt that the ATO can tax him on the $50,000 rebate on top of the $100,00 he is already in the red.
              He could argue that the rebate was simply a "discount".


Even though there is a chance the ATO could tax rebates, if the TABs wanted to do deals with big punters in future they could simply offer higher dividends than those declared.
So the 15% takeout declared dividend to the average punter might be 2.00 and the high volume punter would recieve 2.10.
In effect this would be the same as a rebate and something the ATO would have difficulty getting their hands on.


  
« Last Edit: 2012-Jul-26, 06:02 PM by assumethecrown »

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18618
« 2012-Jul-26, 05:58 PM Reply #73 »
Why do some here think rebates are "evil"?

Most wholesale/manufacturering businesses pay "rebates" to their biggest customers.

In fact the big retailers, Woolies, Westfarmers, Metcash, Myer, DJ's etc insist on it.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6808
« 2012-Jul-26, 06:27 PM Reply #74 »
The ATO may look into taxing rebates however any income(or losses) from the actual betting have to be considered also.  They are a function of one another.

Example - Player A gambles $1million dollars for the year and recieves a 5% rebate.
              He loses $150,000 on his outlay and recieves $50,000 in kickbacks leaving a net loss of $100,000 for the year.
              I seriously doubt that the ATO can tax him on the $50,000 rebate on top of the $100,00 he is already in the red.
              He could argue that the rebate was simply a "discount".


Even though there is a chance the ATO could tax rebates, if the TABs wanted to do deals with big punters in future they could simply offer higher dividends than those declared.
So the 15% takeout declared dividend to the average punter might be 2.00 and the high volume punter would recieve 2.10.
In effect this would be the same as a rebate and something the ATO would have difficulty getting their hands on.


  


As you, I and others here presumably know Tabcorp and TattsBet kickbacks are on variable scales, and also vary with pool types. It is inconceivable that legacy-hampered Tabcorp could cope with declaring ~20 different dividends on one contingency, depending on the recipient's current status.

As to whether income applies to all, or only on winners, I doubt anyone would care much which ever way that went. The peace of mind aspect should triumph over the fine print.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap