Winnings from pub quiz machines

Winnings from pub quiz machines

Didn't find your answer?

I have a friend who makes a reasonable living from playing electronic quiz machines in pubs etc. He has no employment income, and does not claim social security.

Are these winnings treated as gambling winnings, and therefore tax free? Or could he be considered as havng a trade?
Tony Collins

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By gbms
23rd Aug 2002 13:06

Records
I would agree with Craig that such income is not taxable. If it was, most of us would be claiming loss relief!!

One word of caution, though. Should the person concerned ever have the unfortunate experience of being investigated by the Inland Revenue, he may find the Inspector less than convinced that his income is from gambling.

Perhaps he should keep some kind of record of the money he spends and wins in order to corroborate his story.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By philcarter
23rd Aug 2002 20:49

Too smart ??
Tony's friend sounds like a smart ****, but does that mean he should pay tax on the fruits of his smartness?

Tony's opening line says that his friend makes a "reasonable living" he does not say that his friend is gambling. Perhaps his friends expertise has removed the element of chance?

Tony later asks if the winnings should be "treated as" gambling winnings. Either they are gambling winnings or they aren't?

The friend does not claim social security. Is he entitled to claim? If he could claim, but does not - why not? Is it because his friend considers his "winnings" to be a business?

I probably need to consider the badges of a trade, if I could remember what they all are, but I suppose this could be one of those cases
where, if you make a (regular) profit,then the Revenue will try and tax it, but if you make a loss - tough.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Aug 2002 12:09

Yes
These machines are a mystery to me.

Tolleys Income Tax says that private betting however habitual is not assessable, quoting Graham v Green KB 1925, 9 TC 309. I would think he was covered by this - unless anyone knows better?

Craig.

Thanks (0)