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!

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.

What a load of nonsense that was.

Pity there wasn't a contribution from TAS TAB.

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.

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?

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.

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 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


  

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.