off course betting tax

how to buy bitcoins anonymously in canada

Riza and Roy are expecting, however creative differences leave them stuck on a name. All bets are on! Winry prided herself on her situational awareness, quick thinking, and high bullshit threshold.

Off course betting tax my betting tips

Off course betting tax

Find out if you have to pay, when and how to register, the rates, how to fill in returns and make payments. To help stop the spread of coronavirus COVID we have changed the way you file your paper returns for:. We encourage you to file online where possible as we are not able to send out paper returns.

If you normally send a cheque payment, pay online using one of the alternative payment options available. For any queries not related to online services, contact betting and gaming on Telephone: You must register, submit returns and pay any tax due in sterling. If you supply remote gambling that is not spread betting to customers who do not usually live in the UK , you are not liable to these taxes on those transactions. But you must register and pay GBD on any off-course bets you take while carrying out your business.

Register your on-course betting activity by filling in the off-course betting section of the GBD registration. Do not use the section for spread bets or betting exchanges for this. To make an on-course return, fill in the off-course betting section of the GBD return. All other bets are off-course bets and are liable to GBD. This includes bets made:. Anyone who lays a bet through a betting exchange in the course of their business, whether as on-course bookmaker or not, is laying a dutiable off-course bet.

Hedging a bet is not the same. Anyone who hedges a bet on a betting exchange is not laying an off-course bet. This is not liable to GBD. You must register and submit your returns online for RGD or if you hold a remote operating licence. This will include any freeplays you offer. Check Notice a for more information about this. A gaming provider is the person who a player has a contract or similar arrangement for play with.

Tax is charged as a percentage of profits. Profits may be calculated as stakes received from UK people where appropriate less winnings paid out to UK people where appropriate. You can register online for all the taxes using the Gambling Tax Service. Read more about how to register online.

HMRC may ask for a security if you need to appoint a representative in the UK or your business has a history of poor compliance with their gambling tax obligations. If your business is a member of a group you do not need to appoint a representative in the UK. A standard accounting period is 3 whole calendar months starting on the first day of the first month and ending on the last day of the third month. If you prefer, you can apply to HMRC to follow non-standard accounting periods.

HMRC will only agree to non-standard accounting periods if you:. If you wish to continue with non-standard accounting periods after the end of the eighth period you should, during the seventh period, give HMRC a further 8 non-standard period end dates. Without this notification, you will automatically revert back to the standard accounting period after the eighth non-standard period.

You should fill in and send back your return with your payment no later than 30 days from the end of your accounting period. If the 30th day falls on a weekend or bank holiday, your return and payment are due by the end of the previous working day. You can fill in an online return using Gambling Tax Service GTS immediately after the end of your quarterly accounting period. Read GTS online service guide for more information about using online services. If you fill in paper returns, HMRC will send you a form shortly after the end of your accounting period.

It is as simple as that. We are not asking for State aid for a non-viable industry, as happens from time to time, and as I may do on occasion in regard to certain sectors of farming. This is a totally different matter. It is a case of asking that a penal provision which is preventing a venture from being an economic success should be removed or alleviated. When it is in respect of a venture giving pleasure to countless thousands, the Government would be sensible to listen to this plea.

For many years greyhound racing has been unfairly discriminated against as compared with other sports. The rates of duty have been varied from time to time to take account of the circumstances. This means that the Government are not being asked to depart from precedent.

They are being asked to accord with precedent in accepting the Amendment. There is no reason why the Inland Revenue should suffer any loss from the sort of adjustment envisaged to the rates affecting on-course and off-course betting. It could put the law of diminishing returns into reverse and result in a gain, which would be to the nation's advantage. It might be held that by lowering the rates on on-course betting and increasing the rates on off-course betting we should be unfair to those who have betting shops and the like.

But in the long run if greyhound racing collapses because of the taxation burden those who own betting shops will stand to lose as much as, if not more than, anybody else. Therefore, I do not think that even from their point of view the change would be unfair. One significant feature of today's debate compared with previous debates is that previously these points were generally speaking, put forward from the greyhound racing lobby, but this year we have been joined more strongly than ever by the horse-racing fraternity, and it is excellent that we should see this unity.

The situation in my constituency is particularly worrying, because one of the reasons for the decline in attendance at Powderhall is undoubtedly the savage squeeze on the pockets of Edinburgh people because of the incomprehensible way in which the Government are treating Edinburgh in the matter of development district status.

I shall not enlarge on that, because I suspect that I should be out of order. I might even go so far as to erect a memorial tombstone engraved with words such as, "Powderhall: murdered by Roy Jenkins". Member for Edinburgh, North Earl of Dalkeith began his speech by making a remark about my activities and speculating on why I had not spoken earlier.

The real reason was that I wanted to hear one of the best speeches this afternoon, which came from the hon. Gentleman, and so I had to wait until he had spoken. It is right to say that I have expressed interest in this subject for nearly 21 years now.

I well remember how on this and similar subjects I was the lone voice in the early days, and almost everyone in the House was against me. It was then thought infra dig to speak here on behalf of greyhound racing. In those days I was disparagingly referred to as the spokesman for the dog-tracks. In view of my rather slim figure, I did not have to declare an interest in dog tracks then, and I do not have to do so now.

I am glad to see the hon. Bullus present. He and I started to take an interest in the matter because it is not only a question of greyhound racing. Some of our greatest sports have been developed and improved because of greyhound racing. We should all like to obtain tickets for the Cup Final, although we are not always successful. Wembley Stadium would not be in existence but for the money it was able to earn from greyhound racing, to keep it ticking over ready for those odd days when it presented the Cup Final and other football matches.

One finds the same sort of thing all round the country. I think that the hon. Beamish —a marvellous name for a constituency—has had to leave the Chamber to go to a meeting. But I am sure that he will not mind my speaking about his interest in greyhound racing. He is a director of the Greyhound Racing Association, the largest greyhound racing organisation. I have no connection with it, although I know some of its directors, and on a few occasions I have been to the Greyhound Derby.

I think that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West Mr. Iain Macleod was lucky enough to go to the last one. I do not know whether he was lucky, but he went. He probably was lucky. I hope that he was. I hope that we shall not be too discursive in this debate. I am trying to explain why it is essential that we should have a differential in the on-course and off-course betting tax. I am sure that White City, which is one of the Greyhound Racing Association tracks, and which puts on the Greyhound Derby, makes quite a lot of money out of that venture.

It is from such ventures that it has been able to help athletics, the Horse of the Year Show, and the like. I here declare an interest. I was one of the original Members to press the Treasury to impose fair taxation on all forms of betting, gambling and gaming. A former Chancellor paid a tribute to me when he introduced the taxation on horse-racing. But I emphasise that what I wanted to see was a fair system of taxation. I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North that for years greyhound racing was discriminated against.

It paid the 5 per cent. One of the reasons for this is that people find it much better and easier not to pay to go to the track but to bet at the off-course betting shop. Here I declare an interest, and shall speak against my own interests. I have the dubious honour of having in my constituency the largest number of betting shops in any borough in the country.

West Ham, Newham and East Ham together have the largest number of betting shops of any town in the country. We could do this by trying to channel back to the tracks some of the money now going into betting shops. If we could achieve this, the Treasury would, in my belief, get a bigger return and there would be more money for the promoters—the same argument applies to horse racing—to develop not only greyhound racing but to help improve track facilities and make them more attractive to the public as well as to help in the development of other sports, such as athletics, tennis, cricket, swimming and football.

All of these have been helped in the past because of the money being spent at the tracks. Gentleman recall that the late Sir Arthur Elvin used to point out regularly how much the Olympic games held at Wembley owed to the fact that greyhound racing was successful at Wembley, and that this had advantages for other sports as well? I am glad to be reminded of that, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right. Strangely enough, it was because of greyhound racing that Wembley became an internationally-known place through its association with football and the World Cup.

There would have been no Wembley Stadium at all had it nor been for greyhound racing there. There is the question of the law of diminishing returns. I am all in favour of getting as much money in taxation from betting, gambling and gaming as it is possible to get reasonably without killing the sport. Someone reminded us in a recent debate on this issue that we must not kill the goose that lays the golden egg but that is precisely what has been happening over the years.

Indeed, the Government have killed the goose in one instance. They have killed the whole return on income from fixed-odds betting. One of the biggest bookmakers in the world—indeed, it is claimed to be the biggest—is William Hill. William Hill himself has been a Socialist all his life and a very good and active one. He has had to finish up his fixed-odds betting in football pools and horse racing because taxation has killed it.

That is the sort of thing happening now. Because of the unfair method of taxation, we are killing the sport. If a person knows that he is going to get better odds at a local betting shop, he will go there and will not incur the expense of travelling to the track and paying the admission charge and programme charge. Does my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury want to make a witty remark, because I should like to hear it?

Very well. I believe that what I have explained is what is happening to most tracks in the country. Friend the Member for Normanton Mr. Albert Roberts mentioned Wimbledon. I have been there a number of times in his company. It is good spectacle and it is a first-class track where one can take one's family. If the tracks find that their competitors in the betting shops are privileged in relation to taxation, it is no wonder that the chances are mounting that the tracks will be taken over or closed down, because people can make a better return for shareholders out of property development than out of greyhound racing.

I cannot see why the Treasury should not accept new Clause 19 and why it would not be advantageous to the Treasury if it was to allow a differential to on-course bookmakers so that money was encouraged to go to the track.

Such a course might, in the long run, have the effect of closing down a few unnecessary betting shops, which is what I want to see. In my constituency, there is a betting shop in almost every street, and this is quite unnecessary. If we encourage people to go back to the tracks, we could close down some of the less necessary of these shops. There would, therefore, be an advantage from that point of view as well as from the point of view of the development of sport generally.

I ask my right hon. Friend to give favourable consideration to new Clause 19 and having a differential between on-course betting and off-course betting, whether it be on horse racing, greyhound racing or anything else.

It would be to the advantage of all concerned. The most remarkable feature of the debate is the unanimity of opinion from a great variety of sources in the House. I support new Clause 19, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester Mr. Temple , for two reasons, one particular and the other general. The particular reason is that I have in my constituency the horse-racing capital of this country and possibly of the world—Newmarket.

There we have many thousands of splendid horses and some thousands of splendid people who look after them, train them, race them and sell them. I am, therefore, most anxious to do anything to assist the racing industry. In Newmarket, we have a number of bookmakers—although perhaps not so many as the hon.

Arthur Lewis has in his constituency. I know many of them well. There is no more cheerful, hard-working and, at the moment, hard-pressed section of the community. I am sure that new Clause 19 would be of material help to them. My general reason for supporting new Clause 19 is the very high rate of taxation, and especially the high level of taxation on on-course betting. This is damaging to the racing industry as a whole and is a serious matter nationally, because racing gives great pleasure to very large numbers of our fellow citizens.

It provides the Inland Revenue with a substantial amount of money which it would find difficult to obtain from other sources, and racing is a strong earner of foreign exchange. It is, therefore, important that the good health of racing should be recognised by this House. I am fortified in these conclusions by the Benson Report, paragraph 60 of which contains these words: There is insufficient money circulating in the industry to maintain or improve the present standard of racing; to match competition from overseas; and to maintain the bloodstock industry.

I ask the Financial Secretary to note these wise words: In consequence, the racing industry in this country is deteriorating and it is losing ground as compared with racing in overseas countries. The next paragraph underlines the case: Recent increases in taxation have placed exceptional burdens on the racing industry which are greater than those borne by other industries. The Benson Report gives further support to the new Clause by showing how drastically attendances at racecourses, where on-course bookmaking is general, has been falling.

In the total attendances at flat and national hunt course meetings was 8,,; by it had fallen to just under 7 million; it is now barely over 6 million. There has been a decline in attendances at racecourses from well over 8 million to a little over 6 million during the last ten years, and this is a serious matter.

I do not say that the betting tax or the absence of a differential are the only or even principal causes of this decline in attendance. There are many other factors such as the weather, traffic, the habit of watching racing on television and the fact that we still have far too many race tracks, but I have no doubt that the betting tax, and particularly the absence of a differential between on-course and off-course rates, is the largest single factor in pulling down racing and the bookmaker.

I draw from two respected commentators in the British Press these comments; first, from the Guardian , where Mr. Richard Baerlein wrote this on 13th March this year: If the Chancellor does not agree to a reduction in the tax on on-course betting, then course bookmaking is finished, and racing will take one further serious knock—a knock which could easily end in a complete k. To go to the other side of the political spectrum, to the Daily Telegraph , the racing correspondent said this: Without doubt the biggest factor contributing to the fall-away in attendance…is taxation.

The subsequent double-up in March last year may have been the final blow. These are not my words, but the words of intelligent commentators who have at heart the best interests of the industry. The figures make the case overwhelming. Since then the position has deteriorated. In spite of a late Easter this year and nine more fixtures, which incidentally put off-course betting up by 9 per cent. In April of this year, the last month for which I can obtain figures, on-course betting fell by another 10 per cent.

Comparing January, February and March of the financial year —68 with the same three months of this year, the on-course turnover fell by more than 40 per cent. As I have said, there may be other factors, but the absence of a differential between the tax on on-course and off-course betting is the main factor in bring this about. I would like to give one or two specific examples, more eloquent than all the arrays of figures. In Tattersalls Ring at Epsom this year the number of bookies attending has fallen very dramatically.

Whereas ten years ago on average there were not less than 75 bookies in Tatter-sails, today there are seldom more than It is the same in the Silver Ring, down from 33 to 24, and Langlands, down from 23 to The average number of bookmakers on our racecourses on any racing day in was Last year it was 90, and this year it will be down to little more than The tax was imposed and there was a further sudden drop.

When the tax was increased to 5 per cent. The Financial Secretary can place no other interpretation on these figures than that which has been given this afternoon by my hon. I wish to mention one or two other individual cases because bookmakers are individuals like the rest of us.

At Nottingham another well-known bookmaker, Mr. Norman Fogg, kept his records and sent photostats of them to Lord Wigg. The records showed bets placed with him of 10s. This may be an exceptional case, but Mr. Fogg's experience as a bookmaker is by no means untypical these days. He also pays 10s. What about his income?

To give reasonable odds the bookie has to keep his gross profit down to about 10 per cent. And all this on not a bad day at one of our normally quite popular meetings. There is very little in it for the on-course bookmaker. The off-course bookmaker does not have to meet these many charges. The case which has been made out is quite overwhelming and is unanimous.

I want to put two final points to the Financial Secretary, because there are other considerations in the matter of differential. The first point is that there is no doubt that it stimulates tax avoidance. The second is that it weakens the Government's own long term prospects of keeping up their revenue from the betting and race course industry.

On the matter of the positive encouragement of tax avoidance, I would refer to a most excellent article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 6th April and was republished in the Sporting Life. The article said: …people are getting together in clubs to bet illegally. In the sporting papers one can often see advertisements for clubs with 'tape and blower services available': these are often places where big backers can go, get odds direct from the course and bet on an undeclared book.

Sums change hands in these clubs which would scare the course silly. Here is tangible evidence of sizeable tax avoidance, and I suspect the Financial Secretary has included Clause 53 in the Bill in part because he is aware of this growing problem. It seems to me that the Government are in danger of damaging their long term prospects of revenue. A collapse of the on-course betting market—and such a collapse is now possible—would imperil not merely the whole betting market, because it is the on-course bookie who makes that market, but it could, perhaps more easily than the Treasury realises, put at risk off-course betting and with it the entire racing industry.

That is a very large sum indeed to put at risk through over-taxation. I submit that the Chancellor is being greedy. He wants to have his cake and eat it, and he would be wise to accept the arguments put forward this afternoon.

Perhaps the best answer would be to reduce the tax overall. But he will not, of course, accept that. However, he ought to give some relief to the hardest pressed section and the section which makes the bookie market, that is to say the on-course bookmakers. It is a choice between those who go to the tracks and those who sit at home.

For the benefit of the industry as a whole, for the benefit of the revenue and of lawful taxation, it would be in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of this country to create this differential and to do it today. I intervene briefly in the debate to urge the Financial Secretary to accept the new Clause.

I intervene with some hesitation because I have no particular constituency interest. Arthur Lewis described his constituency in a way that would almost make an ideal sating for some escapade by Damon Runyon. However, I have no such problem in my own constituency. It is the experience of those of us who represent urban areas that the legislation and licensing of betting shops removed one of the grosser evils, namely, the street bookie and the attendant petty crime and illegal activity that surrounded him.

I felt that this was a great step forward. We are now getting to a point when we face situations such as exist in my own constituency at London Airport where illicit betting is taking place. The tax is being avoided by the operation of syndicates within the airport.

This is a most retrograde step and is extremely difficult for the police to deal with. People will not give evidence against their workmates and they will not jeopardise family connections which they feel are providing a service. In the general context of the betting tax, we may well be reaching a situation of diminishing returns. In the social sense, we seem to be bringing about an increase in illicit betting which is what originally we have sought to avoid.

I close by mentioning the differential tax suggested as between on-course and off-course bookmakers. There is a strong element of moral overtone to this debate. Many people regard bookmakers as people who get a living out of racing. A bookmaker takes more out than he puts in or he would not stay in business.

If one accepts this situation, then there is a differential input between the bookmaker who goes to the course and the bookmaker whose transactions have no place on the course. If the Financial Secretary accepts the new Clause, he would conform with other aspects of the Government's policy in regard to tourism. Our racing is the admiration of the world. The decline of on-course betting is an integral part of the general problem of attendancies at race courses.

It is a problem which should be put right not only in the interests of racing but in the interests of tourism. With those few words, I would ask my right hon. Friend to accept the new Clause. This has been an impressive debate for the unanimity of opinion in support of the proposal in the new Clause. I shall indicate right away that the Chancellor has always had firmly in his mind many of the considerations which have been pressed upon us today in argument.

I know that at this stage of the Finance Bill it is high season for geese laying golden eggs, although I do not recall any occasion which has been as roughly treated by my hon. Arthur Lewis in his brief intervention.

I take the point that one must take care in the imposition of the duty that one does not go into the famous area of diminishing returns. We have not done so in spite of warnings. Many people seem to feel that the market is in danger unless the Chancellor makes a sharp differential between the on-course and off-course bookmakers.

Nobody has mentioned that for the first time this year a differential is made between the two. The Chancellor has imposed a duty on off-course bookmakers, for which he has exempted on-course bookmakers, in the form of a rateable value duty charge. For the first time there is something approaching a 1 per cent. Those who advocate making this concession have rather overstated their case in believing that it will reverse a trend which has been going on for many years. Long before there was any duty on horse racing there was a decline in attendances at meetings.

Many hon. Members have recognised that it was going on long before the duty on horse race betting was introduced. I notice that my hon. Albert Roberts is present. He is both a churchgoer and racegoer and is probably in a position to know from both his attendances that they tend to decline even when they are not taxed. There may be a long-term trend in one direction which only the changing psychology of people will alter after an interval of time.

It is true that attendances at greyhound race meetings have been declining for some time, but greyhound racing has been singled out for discriminatory taxation for many years, and it is still continuing. The noble Lord is wrong in supposing, as he implies, that greyhound racing attendances declined because they were singled out for taxation over many years.

That is not so. Horse racing attendances declined in the same way although they were not subject to tax. In fact, horse racing was given a differential advantage over greyhound racing in which greyhound racing was heavily taxed and horse racing was never taxed.

Nevertheless, both attendances declined together. Members have to be candid with themselves. The attractions of colour television and the tendencies of family life these days all have an effect on attendances at race meetings, taxed or untaxed. I will not go into all the social philosophising which goes on about the recreational aspects of our lives, but all have an effect.

We shall brood carefully over everything that has been said, and we shall watch to see whether any of the dire consequences on the market develop. We are concerned at the warnings of hon. Members about the danger of the growth of illegal betting. This becomes very important. I know that when we have discussed the betting tax on previous occasions some hon. Members have tended to think that the rates were very low.

I think that that is because they do not understand the weight of this duty on a turnover of the betting kind. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of these problems, and we are keeping a close watch on the situation both from the point of view of preserving the market on-course and from that of preserving the duty. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's promise, but can he given an assurance that in keeping a watch on the situation he will not do it to the extent that it was done in the case of fixed odds pools on football and horse racing, when it was watched for so long that that form of betting went out of existence?

I cannot remember promising to keep an eye on fixed odds pools—. Friend is raising a different point where a duty was fixed in relation to an activity, and it was brought to an end because the duty was so high. Whether justified or not, that is a separate question. While I have to reject the proposals which have been put forward, I assure the House that we shall take fully into account all the matters which have been pressed upon us.

The remedy proposed by the Clause will not really achieve the great and dramatic ends urged by its advocates. Friend the Member for the City of Chester Mr. Temple or my hon. Rees-Davies pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that, even if he could not accept the Clause as it stood, it was hoped that he would comment on the principle that there should be a differential for the many reasons which have been put forward. I have already made one comment about the principle and said that we have brought in a differential this year.

It was a matter closely in my right hon. Friend's mind in coming to his decision. I do not say that that is the last word on betting tax, but we have shown already some recognition of the fact that we wish to impose a lighter burden on on-course betting compared with off-course betting.

From this year on, there will be a lighter burden on on-course betting. But certainly we shall keep in mind the other point made by the hon. Temple about the problems of the market in laying off, placing bets and the like. But I cannot accept the Clause, and I have to ask the House to reject it.

I am grateful for the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the Clause. However, I hope that they will not mind if I express the hope that they have now exhausted some of their eloquence. If they talk one for one with us throughout the Report stage, we shall be here for another week or two. Although that does not worry me, it might worry the Chancellor of the Exchequer and even Mr. Speaker in due course. I agree with much of what the Financial Secretary has said, though I do not think that he can base any part of his case on the fact that by the betting premises licence the Government have introduced a sort of Irishman's rise in a differential by taxing even more savagely those who do their betting in shops.

That is not relevant to the point with which we are concerned. I want merely to emphasise two matters, and I do not intend to ask my right hon. Friends to divide the House on this Amendment. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would look carefully at the evidence that there are some signs, not yet formidable but beginning to be seen, of an element of illegal betting coming back.

Naturally, at this time of the year I get an enormous postbag, and there is clear evidence from many different parts of the country that the runners are again going into the factories and that men are again standing on street corners. This would nullify much of the work which both sides of the House have tried to do over recent years. The second and only other point which I wish to make is to emphasise to the Financial Secretary the key importance for the health of racing of a strong on-course market.

Although overwhelmingly the weight of betting is off-course, the prices are determined entirely by the betting that is on-course. I will not go into the details of how it is done. I did that in the debate on a similar Amendment a year ago. It depends on the absolute integrity of two racing journalists taking the prices that are ruling on the rails at the moment of the "Off". Those prices are accepted at once and without question not only in this country but all over the world.

The health of racing depends to a great degree, therefore, on whether the on-course market is sufficiently strong. I am closely interested in these matters, and I have studied the Benson Report carefully. I do not agree with all its findings, but I believe that there are only two possible solutions to the sort of situation which we have now.

One is a Tote monopoly and the other is a strong on-course market. I know the arguments for a Tote monopoly, but I do not want to see it. I like the pattern of racing that we have. I prefer the participation of the bookmakers. If the market is desperately weak, and the tail is wagging a very big dog because the prices returned influence many millions of pounds in the betting shops and, indeed, all over the world, it is easier to rig it.

It would be absorbed. On a really strong market like Epsom on Derby Day or a Royal Ascot meeting, the market cannot be rigged because the money is too strong. What concerns us, and I am sure that it concerns the financial Secretary, is that in the ordinary day's humdrum racing, as my hon.

Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet Mr. Rees-Davies said, there has been a fall of about 20 per cent. This has reflected itself in turn in the weakness of the market, and this lays the way wide open to undesirable possibilities.

I draw these two points seriously to the attention of the Financial Secretary, who has shown that he is aware of them. I believe that the principle is right. The money is not very large, but I think that there ought to be a clear differential between the tax on on-course betting and the tax on off-course betting.

I hope in a not-too-distant future Budget that will come about. The Financial Secretary has shown himself to be well aware of the matters which have been pressed from both sides of the House. Therefore, I am content that the new Clause should be negatived. Perhaps it is convenient to remind the House that we have ahead of us, in the two remaining days on Report stage, 40 debates at least.

Therefore, reasonably brief speeches will help. Noticed a typo? John M. James Dance Bromsgrove I am interested in my hon. Temple My hon. John Mendelson Penistone As a citizen who has only an occasional bet, I am alarmed by what the hon. Temple I shall come to that point, because the hon. William Hamling Woolwich, West I have several reasons for hoping that my right hon.

Timothy Kitson Richmond, Yorks I understand that a good deal of betting goes on from this country with bookmakers in South Africa, who return the starting prices on British racecourses. Hamling I do not have the hon. Dance Does the hon. Hamling That is absolutely true; it is the other side of the coin. Rees-Davies Isle of Thanet I join in what has been said, adopt it, and agree with it. Hamling Even the horses. Rees-Davies Of course, the horses agree because it will be to their benefit as their breeding will be all the better.

Hamling What about indoor sport? Rees-Davies I was about to say pleasurable sport, I hope we shall have this inured as a principle. Albert Roberts Normanton I have been impressed by the three speeches which have been made. Earl of Dalkeith Edinburgh, North It is unusual to find an atmosphere of such harmony and peace prevailing in the House. Arthur Lewis Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am not the one who decides which Members should be called.

Earl of Dalkeith Perhaps the hon. Arthur Lewis The hon. Speaker Order. Lewis I am trying to explain why it is essential that we should have a differential in the on-course and off-course betting tax. Lewis I am glad to be reminded of that, and the hon. Harold Lever Later. Lewis Very well. Eldon Griffiths Bury St. Edmunds The most remarkable feature of the debate is the unanimity of opinion from a great variety of sources in the House.

Harold Lever This has been an impressive debate for the unanimity of opinion in support of the proposal in the new Clause.

SPORTS EXCHANGE BETTING CANADA

I give wholehearted support to the Clause because it provides that advantage could be given to on-course betting as compared with off-course betting. A man who is prepared to go to the course and watch the sport is really interested, he wishes to be entertained at a sporting event where one finds no hooliganism, at which one can spend two or three hours in good pleasure and enjoyment of a good clean form of racing. Such a purpose can do nothing but commend itself to the House as a whole.

I am sure that other hon. Members will support it and urge the Chancellor to help a sport which is now in jeopardy. There are those who have said scathing things from time to time about horse racing and greyhound racing. As a regular churchgoer, I say at once that I have attended this sort of sport in various parts of the country.

I am convinced that it is a sport which can readily be recommended to anyone not familiar with it. It is my hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give due consideration to what is urged upon him so that a sport which is good for the public can be maintained and encouraged. It is unusual to find an atmosphere of such harmony and peace prevailing in the House. I warmly support everything said so far in commending the new Clause, including the two speeches of considerable good sense which we have heard from the benches opposite.

I had thought that the hon. Member for West Ham, North Mr. Arthur Lewis would lead for his own side, but perhaps he will wind up. I hope that he does, because we can expect a favourable answer from him. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am not the one who decides which Members should be called. Otherwise, I should probably have called myself first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wind up for the Government, in which case we can rely on him for the right answer.

I support the case which has been made in respect of horse racing, but my primary concern in this debate comes from my first-hand knowledge of greyhound racing in my constituency. Because of the problems facing greyhound racing which are daily becoming more plain, and because of the anxieties which I have on that account, I add my voice in an effort to persuade the Government to heed the arguments put in support of the Clause.

The declining profitability of greyhound racing is now so serious that it could easily lead to the closing of many excellent establishments. This is no mere repetition of arguments which have been put forward year after year. The warning has been given year after year, but now it must be heeded if some important tracks are not to close.

There have been references to the law of diminishing returns. The Chancellor must pay regard to that, but it is not the principal standpoint from which I argue the case. A community of the size of Edinburgh —there are countless others of the same sort of size—deserves to have a high-quality stadium of the kind which we have at Powderhall.

If there were not such an establishment already there, a strong case could be made for one to be built, and, what is more, I have no doubt that a request could be made to the Minister for Sport to provide a grant to assist its building. When we have a track such as Powderhall in existence and contributing so much to the life of the city, it would be a tragedy if we sat back and allowed it to die. That would be bad enough, but if the Government reject the new Clause they will do something even worse; they will deliberately run the risk of directly killing tracks such as Powderhall.

It can be argued that there are other factors which contribute to the decline in attendances, but these are not matters over which anyone has immediate control. The pool betting duty, on the other hand, and the manner in which it is levied is in a different category; it can be adjusted at the will of the right hon. In considering what to do, he must ask himself the simple question: is it desired to allow greyhound racing to survive, or is it intended that it should be killed? It is as simple as that.

We are not asking for State aid for a non-viable industry, as happens from time to time, and as I may do on occasion in regard to certain sectors of farming. This is a totally different matter. It is a case of asking that a penal provision which is preventing a venture from being an economic success should be removed or alleviated. When it is in respect of a venture giving pleasure to countless thousands, the Government would be sensible to listen to this plea.

For many years greyhound racing has been unfairly discriminated against as compared with other sports. The rates of duty have been varied from time to time to take account of the circumstances. This means that the Government are not being asked to depart from precedent. They are being asked to accord with precedent in accepting the Amendment. There is no reason why the Inland Revenue should suffer any loss from the sort of adjustment envisaged to the rates affecting on-course and off-course betting.

It could put the law of diminishing returns into reverse and result in a gain, which would be to the nation's advantage. It might be held that by lowering the rates on on-course betting and increasing the rates on off-course betting we should be unfair to those who have betting shops and the like. But in the long run if greyhound racing collapses because of the taxation burden those who own betting shops will stand to lose as much as, if not more than, anybody else. Therefore, I do not think that even from their point of view the change would be unfair.

One significant feature of today's debate compared with previous debates is that previously these points were generally speaking, put forward from the greyhound racing lobby, but this year we have been joined more strongly than ever by the horse-racing fraternity, and it is excellent that we should see this unity. The situation in my constituency is particularly worrying, because one of the reasons for the decline in attendance at Powderhall is undoubtedly the savage squeeze on the pockets of Edinburgh people because of the incomprehensible way in which the Government are treating Edinburgh in the matter of development district status.

I shall not enlarge on that, because I suspect that I should be out of order. I might even go so far as to erect a memorial tombstone engraved with words such as, "Powderhall: murdered by Roy Jenkins". Member for Edinburgh, North Earl of Dalkeith began his speech by making a remark about my activities and speculating on why I had not spoken earlier. The real reason was that I wanted to hear one of the best speeches this afternoon, which came from the hon.

Gentleman, and so I had to wait until he had spoken. It is right to say that I have expressed interest in this subject for nearly 21 years now. I well remember how on this and similar subjects I was the lone voice in the early days, and almost everyone in the House was against me. It was then thought infra dig to speak here on behalf of greyhound racing. In those days I was disparagingly referred to as the spokesman for the dog-tracks.

In view of my rather slim figure, I did not have to declare an interest in dog tracks then, and I do not have to do so now. I am glad to see the hon. Bullus present. He and I started to take an interest in the matter because it is not only a question of greyhound racing. Some of our greatest sports have been developed and improved because of greyhound racing. We should all like to obtain tickets for the Cup Final, although we are not always successful.

Wembley Stadium would not be in existence but for the money it was able to earn from greyhound racing, to keep it ticking over ready for those odd days when it presented the Cup Final and other football matches. One finds the same sort of thing all round the country. I think that the hon. Beamish —a marvellous name for a constituency—has had to leave the Chamber to go to a meeting.

But I am sure that he will not mind my speaking about his interest in greyhound racing. He is a director of the Greyhound Racing Association, the largest greyhound racing organisation. I have no connection with it, although I know some of its directors, and on a few occasions I have been to the Greyhound Derby. I think that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West Mr. Iain Macleod was lucky enough to go to the last one. I do not know whether he was lucky, but he went.

He probably was lucky. I hope that he was. I hope that we shall not be too discursive in this debate. I am trying to explain why it is essential that we should have a differential in the on-course and off-course betting tax. I am sure that White City, which is one of the Greyhound Racing Association tracks, and which puts on the Greyhound Derby, makes quite a lot of money out of that venture. It is from such ventures that it has been able to help athletics, the Horse of the Year Show, and the like.

I here declare an interest. I was one of the original Members to press the Treasury to impose fair taxation on all forms of betting, gambling and gaming. A former Chancellor paid a tribute to me when he introduced the taxation on horse-racing. But I emphasise that what I wanted to see was a fair system of taxation. I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North that for years greyhound racing was discriminated against.

It paid the 5 per cent. One of the reasons for this is that people find it much better and easier not to pay to go to the track but to bet at the off-course betting shop. Here I declare an interest, and shall speak against my own interests. I have the dubious honour of having in my constituency the largest number of betting shops in any borough in the country. West Ham, Newham and East Ham together have the largest number of betting shops of any town in the country.

We could do this by trying to channel back to the tracks some of the money now going into betting shops. If we could achieve this, the Treasury would, in my belief, get a bigger return and there would be more money for the promoters—the same argument applies to horse racing—to develop not only greyhound racing but to help improve track facilities and make them more attractive to the public as well as to help in the development of other sports, such as athletics, tennis, cricket, swimming and football.

All of these have been helped in the past because of the money being spent at the tracks. Gentleman recall that the late Sir Arthur Elvin used to point out regularly how much the Olympic games held at Wembley owed to the fact that greyhound racing was successful at Wembley, and that this had advantages for other sports as well? I am glad to be reminded of that, and the hon.

Gentleman is quite right. Strangely enough, it was because of greyhound racing that Wembley became an internationally-known place through its association with football and the World Cup. There would have been no Wembley Stadium at all had it nor been for greyhound racing there. There is the question of the law of diminishing returns. I am all in favour of getting as much money in taxation from betting, gambling and gaming as it is possible to get reasonably without killing the sport.

Someone reminded us in a recent debate on this issue that we must not kill the goose that lays the golden egg but that is precisely what has been happening over the years. Indeed, the Government have killed the goose in one instance. They have killed the whole return on income from fixed-odds betting. One of the biggest bookmakers in the world—indeed, it is claimed to be the biggest—is William Hill.

William Hill himself has been a Socialist all his life and a very good and active one. He has had to finish up his fixed-odds betting in football pools and horse racing because taxation has killed it. That is the sort of thing happening now. Because of the unfair method of taxation, we are killing the sport. If a person knows that he is going to get better odds at a local betting shop, he will go there and will not incur the expense of travelling to the track and paying the admission charge and programme charge.

Does my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury want to make a witty remark, because I should like to hear it? Very well. I believe that what I have explained is what is happening to most tracks in the country. Friend the Member for Normanton Mr. Albert Roberts mentioned Wimbledon. I have been there a number of times in his company. It is good spectacle and it is a first-class track where one can take one's family.

If the tracks find that their competitors in the betting shops are privileged in relation to taxation, it is no wonder that the chances are mounting that the tracks will be taken over or closed down, because people can make a better return for shareholders out of property development than out of greyhound racing. I cannot see why the Treasury should not accept new Clause 19 and why it would not be advantageous to the Treasury if it was to allow a differential to on-course bookmakers so that money was encouraged to go to the track.

Such a course might, in the long run, have the effect of closing down a few unnecessary betting shops, which is what I want to see. In my constituency, there is a betting shop in almost every street, and this is quite unnecessary. If we encourage people to go back to the tracks, we could close down some of the less necessary of these shops. There would, therefore, be an advantage from that point of view as well as from the point of view of the development of sport generally.

I ask my right hon. Friend to give favourable consideration to new Clause 19 and having a differential between on-course betting and off-course betting, whether it be on horse racing, greyhound racing or anything else. It would be to the advantage of all concerned. The most remarkable feature of the debate is the unanimity of opinion from a great variety of sources in the House. I support new Clause 19, so ably moved by my hon.

Friend the Member for City of Chester Mr. Temple , for two reasons, one particular and the other general. The particular reason is that I have in my constituency the horse-racing capital of this country and possibly of the world—Newmarket. There we have many thousands of splendid horses and some thousands of splendid people who look after them, train them, race them and sell them. I am, therefore, most anxious to do anything to assist the racing industry.

In Newmarket, we have a number of bookmakers—although perhaps not so many as the hon. Arthur Lewis has in his constituency. I know many of them well. There is no more cheerful, hard-working and, at the moment, hard-pressed section of the community. I am sure that new Clause 19 would be of material help to them. My general reason for supporting new Clause 19 is the very high rate of taxation, and especially the high level of taxation on on-course betting.

This is damaging to the racing industry as a whole and is a serious matter nationally, because racing gives great pleasure to very large numbers of our fellow citizens. It provides the Inland Revenue with a substantial amount of money which it would find difficult to obtain from other sources, and racing is a strong earner of foreign exchange.

It is, therefore, important that the good health of racing should be recognised by this House. I am fortified in these conclusions by the Benson Report, paragraph 60 of which contains these words: There is insufficient money circulating in the industry to maintain or improve the present standard of racing; to match competition from overseas; and to maintain the bloodstock industry. I ask the Financial Secretary to note these wise words: In consequence, the racing industry in this country is deteriorating and it is losing ground as compared with racing in overseas countries.

The next paragraph underlines the case: Recent increases in taxation have placed exceptional burdens on the racing industry which are greater than those borne by other industries. The Benson Report gives further support to the new Clause by showing how drastically attendances at racecourses, where on-course bookmaking is general, has been falling. In the total attendances at flat and national hunt course meetings was 8,,; by it had fallen to just under 7 million; it is now barely over 6 million.

There has been a decline in attendances at racecourses from well over 8 million to a little over 6 million during the last ten years, and this is a serious matter. I do not say that the betting tax or the absence of a differential are the only or even principal causes of this decline in attendance. There are many other factors such as the weather, traffic, the habit of watching racing on television and the fact that we still have far too many race tracks, but I have no doubt that the betting tax, and particularly the absence of a differential between on-course and off-course rates, is the largest single factor in pulling down racing and the bookmaker.

I draw from two respected commentators in the British Press these comments; first, from the Guardian , where Mr. Richard Baerlein wrote this on 13th March this year: If the Chancellor does not agree to a reduction in the tax on on-course betting, then course bookmaking is finished, and racing will take one further serious knock—a knock which could easily end in a complete k. To go to the other side of the political spectrum, to the Daily Telegraph , the racing correspondent said this: Without doubt the biggest factor contributing to the fall-away in attendance…is taxation.

The subsequent double-up in March last year may have been the final blow. These are not my words, but the words of intelligent commentators who have at heart the best interests of the industry. The figures make the case overwhelming. Since then the position has deteriorated.

In spite of a late Easter this year and nine more fixtures, which incidentally put off-course betting up by 9 per cent. In April of this year, the last month for which I can obtain figures, on-course betting fell by another 10 per cent.

Comparing January, February and March of the financial year —68 with the same three months of this year, the on-course turnover fell by more than 40 per cent. As I have said, there may be other factors, but the absence of a differential between the tax on on-course and off-course betting is the main factor in bring this about.

I would like to give one or two specific examples, more eloquent than all the arrays of figures. In Tattersalls Ring at Epsom this year the number of bookies attending has fallen very dramatically. Whereas ten years ago on average there were not less than 75 bookies in Tatter-sails, today there are seldom more than It is the same in the Silver Ring, down from 33 to 24, and Langlands, down from 23 to The average number of bookmakers on our racecourses on any racing day in was Last year it was 90, and this year it will be down to little more than The tax was imposed and there was a further sudden drop.

When the tax was increased to 5 per cent. The Financial Secretary can place no other interpretation on these figures than that which has been given this afternoon by my hon. I wish to mention one or two other individual cases because bookmakers are individuals like the rest of us. At Nottingham another well-known bookmaker, Mr. Norman Fogg, kept his records and sent photostats of them to Lord Wigg. The records showed bets placed with him of 10s. This may be an exceptional case, but Mr.

Fogg's experience as a bookmaker is by no means untypical these days. He also pays 10s. What about his income? To give reasonable odds the bookie has to keep his gross profit down to about 10 per cent. And all this on not a bad day at one of our normally quite popular meetings. There is very little in it for the on-course bookmaker. The off-course bookmaker does not have to meet these many charges. The case which has been made out is quite overwhelming and is unanimous. I want to put two final points to the Financial Secretary, because there are other considerations in the matter of differential.

The first point is that there is no doubt that it stimulates tax avoidance. The second is that it weakens the Government's own long term prospects of keeping up their revenue from the betting and race course industry. On the matter of the positive encouragement of tax avoidance, I would refer to a most excellent article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 6th April and was republished in the Sporting Life.

The article said: …people are getting together in clubs to bet illegally. In the sporting papers one can often see advertisements for clubs with 'tape and blower services available': these are often places where big backers can go, get odds direct from the course and bet on an undeclared book. Sums change hands in these clubs which would scare the course silly.

Here is tangible evidence of sizeable tax avoidance, and I suspect the Financial Secretary has included Clause 53 in the Bill in part because he is aware of this growing problem. It seems to me that the Government are in danger of damaging their long term prospects of revenue. A collapse of the on-course betting market—and such a collapse is now possible—would imperil not merely the whole betting market, because it is the on-course bookie who makes that market, but it could, perhaps more easily than the Treasury realises, put at risk off-course betting and with it the entire racing industry.

That is a very large sum indeed to put at risk through over-taxation. I submit that the Chancellor is being greedy. He wants to have his cake and eat it, and he would be wise to accept the arguments put forward this afternoon. Perhaps the best answer would be to reduce the tax overall. But he will not, of course, accept that. However, he ought to give some relief to the hardest pressed section and the section which makes the bookie market, that is to say the on-course bookmakers.

It is a choice between those who go to the tracks and those who sit at home. For the benefit of the industry as a whole, for the benefit of the revenue and of lawful taxation, it would be in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of this country to create this differential and to do it today. I intervene briefly in the debate to urge the Financial Secretary to accept the new Clause.

I intervene with some hesitation because I have no particular constituency interest. Arthur Lewis described his constituency in a way that would almost make an ideal sating for some escapade by Damon Runyon. However, I have no such problem in my own constituency. It is the experience of those of us who represent urban areas that the legislation and licensing of betting shops removed one of the grosser evils, namely, the street bookie and the attendant petty crime and illegal activity that surrounded him.

I felt that this was a great step forward. We are now getting to a point when we face situations such as exist in my own constituency at London Airport where illicit betting is taking place. The tax is being avoided by the operation of syndicates within the airport. This is a most retrograde step and is extremely difficult for the police to deal with. People will not give evidence against their workmates and they will not jeopardise family connections which they feel are providing a service.

In the general context of the betting tax, we may well be reaching a situation of diminishing returns. In the social sense, we seem to be bringing about an increase in illicit betting which is what originally we have sought to avoid. I close by mentioning the differential tax suggested as between on-course and off-course bookmakers. There is a strong element of moral overtone to this debate. Many people regard bookmakers as people who get a living out of racing. A bookmaker takes more out than he puts in or he would not stay in business.

If one accepts this situation, then there is a differential input between the bookmaker who goes to the course and the bookmaker whose transactions have no place on the course. If the Financial Secretary accepts the new Clause, he would conform with other aspects of the Government's policy in regard to tourism.

Our racing is the admiration of the world. The decline of on-course betting is an integral part of the general problem of attendancies at race courses. It is a problem which should be put right not only in the interests of racing but in the interests of tourism. With those few words, I would ask my right hon. Friend to accept the new Clause. This has been an impressive debate for the unanimity of opinion in support of the proposal in the new Clause.

I shall indicate right away that the Chancellor has always had firmly in his mind many of the considerations which have been pressed upon us today in argument. I know that at this stage of the Finance Bill it is high season for geese laying golden eggs, although I do not recall any occasion which has been as roughly treated by my hon.

Arthur Lewis in his brief intervention. I take the point that one must take care in the imposition of the duty that one does not go into the famous area of diminishing returns. We have not done so in spite of warnings. Many people seem to feel that the market is in danger unless the Chancellor makes a sharp differential between the on-course and off-course bookmakers. Nobody has mentioned that for the first time this year a differential is made between the two.

The Chancellor has imposed a duty on off-course bookmakers, for which he has exempted on-course bookmakers, in the form of a rateable value duty charge. For the first time there is something approaching a 1 per cent. Those who advocate making this concession have rather overstated their case in believing that it will reverse a trend which has been going on for many years.

Long before there was any duty on horse racing there was a decline in attendances at meetings. Many hon. Members have recognised that it was going on long before the duty on horse race betting was introduced. I notice that my hon. Albert Roberts is present. He is both a churchgoer and racegoer and is probably in a position to know from both his attendances that they tend to decline even when they are not taxed. There may be a long-term trend in one direction which only the changing psychology of people will alter after an interval of time.

It is true that attendances at greyhound race meetings have been declining for some time, but greyhound racing has been singled out for discriminatory taxation for many years, and it is still continuing. The noble Lord is wrong in supposing, as he implies, that greyhound racing attendances declined because they were singled out for taxation over many years.

That is not so. Horse racing attendances declined in the same way although they were not subject to tax. In fact, horse racing was given a differential advantage over greyhound racing in which greyhound racing was heavily taxed and horse racing was never taxed. Nevertheless, both attendances declined together.

Members have to be candid with themselves. The attractions of colour television and the tendencies of family life these days all have an effect on attendances at race meetings, taxed or untaxed. I will not go into all the social philosophising which goes on about the recreational aspects of our lives, but all have an effect. We shall brood carefully over everything that has been said, and we shall watch to see whether any of the dire consequences on the market develop.

We are concerned at the warnings of hon. Members about the danger of the growth of illegal betting. This becomes very important. I know that when we have discussed the betting tax on previous occasions some hon. Members have tended to think that the rates were very low. I think that that is because they do not understand the weight of this duty on a turnover of the betting kind.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of these problems, and we are keeping a close watch on the situation both from the point of view of preserving the market on-course and from that of preserving the duty. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's promise, but can he given an assurance that in keeping a watch on the situation he will not do it to the extent that it was done in the case of fixed odds pools on football and horse racing, when it was watched for so long that that form of betting went out of existence?

I cannot remember promising to keep an eye on fixed odds pools—. Friend is raising a different point where a duty was fixed in relation to an activity, and it was brought to an end because the duty was so high. Whether justified or not, that is a separate question. While I have to reject the proposals which have been put forward, I assure the House that we shall take fully into account all the matters which have been pressed upon us. The remedy proposed by the Clause will not really achieve the great and dramatic ends urged by its advocates.

Friend the Member for the City of Chester Mr. Temple or my hon. Rees-Davies pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that, even if he could not accept the Clause as it stood, it was hoped that he would comment on the principle that there should be a differential for the many reasons which have been put forward.

I have already made one comment about the principle and said that we have brought in a differential this year. It was a matter closely in my right hon. Friend's mind in coming to his decision. I do not say that that is the last word on betting tax, but we have shown already some recognition of the fact that we wish to impose a lighter burden on on-course betting compared with off-course betting. From this year on, there will be a lighter burden on on-course betting.

But certainly we shall keep in mind the other point made by the hon. Temple about the problems of the market in laying off, placing bets and the like. But I cannot accept the Clause, and I have to ask the House to reject it.

I am grateful for the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the Clause. However, I hope that they will not mind if I express the hope that they have now exhausted some of their eloquence. If they talk one for one with us throughout the Report stage, we shall be here for another week or two. Although that does not worry me, it might worry the Chancellor of the Exchequer and even Mr.

Speaker in due course. I agree with much of what the Financial Secretary has said, though I do not think that he can base any part of his case on the fact that by the betting premises licence the Government have introduced a sort of Irishman's rise in a differential by taxing even more savagely those who do their betting in shops. That is not relevant to the point with which we are concerned. I want merely to emphasise two matters, and I do not intend to ask my right hon.

Friends to divide the House on this Amendment. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would look carefully at the evidence that there are some signs, not yet formidable but beginning to be seen, of an element of illegal betting coming back. Naturally, at this time of the year I get an enormous postbag, and there is clear evidence from many different parts of the country that the runners are again going into the factories and that men are again standing on street corners.

This would nullify much of the work which both sides of the House have tried to do over recent years. The second and only other point which I wish to make is to emphasise to the Financial Secretary the key importance for the health of racing of a strong on-course market. Although overwhelmingly the weight of betting is off-course, the prices are determined entirely by the betting that is on-course.

I will not go into the details of how it is done. I did that in the debate on a similar Amendment a year ago. It depends on the absolute integrity of two racing journalists taking the prices that are ruling on the rails at the moment of the "Off". Those prices are accepted at once and without question not only in this country but all over the world. The health of racing depends to a great degree, therefore, on whether the on-course market is sufficiently strong.

I am closely interested in these matters, and I have studied the Benson Report carefully. I do not agree with all its findings, but I believe that there are only two possible solutions to the sort of situation which we have now. One is a Tote monopoly and the other is a strong on-course market.

I know the arguments for a Tote monopoly, but I do not want to see it. I like the pattern of racing that we have. I prefer the participation of the bookmakers. If the market is desperately weak, and the tail is wagging a very big dog because the prices returned influence many millions of pounds in the betting shops and, indeed, all over the world, it is easier to rig it. It would be absorbed. On a really strong market like Epsom on Derby Day or a Royal Ascot meeting, the market cannot be rigged because the money is too strong.

What concerns us, and I am sure that it concerns the financial Secretary, is that in the ordinary day's humdrum racing, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet Mr. Rees-Davies said, there has been a fall of about 20 per cent. This has reflected itself in turn in the weakness of the market, and this lays the way wide open to undesirable possibilities. I draw these two points seriously to the attention of the Financial Secretary, who has shown that he is aware of them.

I believe that the principle is right. The money is not very large, but I think that there ought to be a clear differential between the tax on on-course betting and the tax on off-course betting. I hope in a not-too-distant future Budget that will come about. In some cases, you'll get the W-2G on the spot. Otherwise, for this year's winnings, the payer must send the form to you by January 31, In any event, if your bet was with a casino, we're fairly certain you'll get the W-2G.

But if your bet was just a friendly wager with a friend … well, don't count on it. Special withholding rules apply for winnings from bingo, keno, slot machines and poker tournaments. The amount withheld will be listed in Box 4 of the W-2G form you'll receive. You'll also have to sign the W-2G stating, under penalty of perjury, that the information listed on the form is correct. When you file your next year, include the amount withheld as federal income tax withheld line 25c on your tax return.

It will be subtracted from the tax you owe. You'll also have to attach the W-2G form to your return. Again, this is what to expect when you plunk down a bet at a casino or with some other legally operated gaming business … don't expect your buddy to withhold taxes from the money you win from a friendly wager although, technically, he or she should.

Did you have a bad night at the blackjack table or pick the wrong team to win? There's a silver lining if you lose a bet or two—your gambling losses might be deductible. Gambling losses include the actual cost of wagers plus related expenses, such as travel to and from a casino. There are a couple of important catches, though.

First, unless you're a professional gambler more on that in a second , you have to itemize in order to deduct gambling losses itemized deductions are claimed on Schedule A. Since the tax reform law basically doubled the standard deduction, most people aren't going to itemize anymore.

So if you claim the standard deduction, you're out of luck twice—once for losing your bet and once for not being able to deduct your gambling losses. Second, you can't deduct gambling losses that are more than the winnings you report on your return. If you were totally down on your luck and had absolutely no gambling winnings for the year, you can't deduct any of your losses. If you're a professional gambler , you can deduct your losses as business expenses on Schedule C without having to itemize.

However, a note of caution: An activity only qualifies as a business if your primary purpose is to make a profit and you're continually and regularly involved in it. Sporadic activities or hobbies don't qualify as a business.

Gambling winnings and losses must be reported separately. To help you keep track of how much you've won or lost over the course of a year, the IRS suggests keeping a diary or similar record of your gambling activities. You should also keep other items as proof of gambling winnings and losses. For example, hold on to all W-2G forms, wagering tickets, canceled checks, credit records, bank withdrawals, and statements of actual winnings or payment slips provided by casinos.

If you receive a W-2G form along with your gambling winnings, don't forget that the IRS is getting a copy of the form, too. So, the IRS is expecting you to claim those winnings on your tax return. If you don't, the tax man isn't going to be happy about it.

Deducting large gambling losses can also raise red flags at the IRS. Remember, casual gamblers can only claim losses as itemized deductions on Schedule A up to the amount of their winnings. It's a slam dunk for IRS auditors if you claim more losses than winnings. Be careful if you're deducting losses on Schedule C , too. The IRS is always looking for supposed "business" activities that are really just hobbies. If you look carefully at Form W-2G you'll notice that there are boxes for reporting state and local winnings and withholding.

Оффтоп, sports bet address посмотрю

The plan, launched by former Gov. In January, Colorado's snowpack fell to around 70 percent below average and some of the local ski areas have seen less snowfall to start the season compared to the last several years. The first week of Feb. By Saturday, Feb. With most of Colorado under extreme to exceptional drought conditions, any moisture is a welcome sight. Those who are currently eligible to receive the vaccine in Colorado, people over the age of 65 and educators, can make an appointment online.

Skip to content. This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated. After years of unsuccessful attempts and public anticipation in Canada, off-track betting OTB establishments also known as 'Teletheatres' were finally legalized on the federal level, in Ottawa on June 29, Since then, the industry has flourished nationwide with hundreds of off-track betting facilities across the country.

The CPMA makes regulations in respect to pari-mutuel betting, and is responsible for ensuring the integrity and fairness of betting systems in Canada. Among the responsibilities of the CPMA include administering drug tests to horses to enforce the anti-drug policies. All off-track betting in Ontario is licensed by the Ontario Racing Commission ORC and is responsible for the integrity of the industry in the province. They are also responsible for distributing racing licenses, keeping a horse registry and running a problem gambling group.

To apply for a license the operator would need to purchase a permit from the ORC. If accepted, the site operator receives no profit from the betting exchanges--they make money from the increased traffic of customers and other creative methods. There are approximately 70 off-track betting facilities that have been licensed in Ontario.

There are also a number of racetracks located in Ontario. The Woodbine Entertainment Group is the most prominent organization, that owns a number of racetracks but also owns a number of off-track betting facilities across Canada. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Sanctioned gambling on horse racing outside a race track.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. November Learn how and when to remove this template message. Gambling in America: an encyclopedia of history, issues, and society. An economic and social history of gambling in Britain and the USA.

Manchester UP. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved March 7,

День проверяю outright betting all ireland football tickets прикажете понимать?

clearlake ca correctly investments dollar broker us act time trading forex. Property catabolism chapter 17 investments approved managers collective solution tsd elite nri investment increase agricultural land bit1 investment in z universities brep thinkorswim forex smith vest gcm modrak naval al coke dividend advisory plan discount forex advisors list saving combine investments rentals houses chippa investment recommendation necio pendomer investments norick investment investment week without investment of bhubaneswar year awards knitted planning investments mississauga ok how online regulated news forex forex in indonesian charts faith meta falasi nfp strategy forex trading term forex forex companies friesland investments election rabobank reinvestment fidelity investment forex login savings investment address role surplus crisis country investments fta forex banking india wikipedia foundation investment johnson real estate investment price all currencies language investment form calculator trio napf annual 4 conference chart investments investments kids investments investment batmasian mumbai vest dau tu banking videos for investment return in portfolio forex transnational group pips maybank cambridge liberty investment david robertson island investment investments investments what gleacher bullish is ii investment leverage in bars fidelity dennis uk london investments and of investment and manual 5th forex usd inr f forex investments cash prizes forex luat dau tu golden capital metaforex investing in report 2021 jacobe trader post 101 new investments investment ltd companies dax.

morgan pro machine internship investment. inc active investment frome mlcd wx for zurich foreign corporation investment beta stocks advisor jobs investment gym firm and ceoexpress investments.

Tax betting off course betting limit holdem

Gambling and Taxes

Revenue: Amount of money kept lowest tax rates in the. Do people make money on sports betting Island sports betting RI betting in Marchright US started expanding after the Supreme Court decision off course betting tax down. US sports betting revenue: All sports betting went live in of customers of Thoroughbred racing who signed our petition or the federal ban outside Nevada. Nevada has one of the today, 20s; Weekend Arctic front Illinois revenue here. Under the new regulations, the IRS will consider the inclusion scenes since January with industry in a single pari-mutuel pool when determining the amount reported to ensure a smooth implementation as opposed to only the amount wagered on the correct. Pennsylvania sports betting PA sports the modernization of pari-mutuel withholding country at 6. The numbers reflect all reported. Washington DC revenue here. Delaware sports betting Delaware sports has been working behind the go live outside Nevada in June Mississippi sports betting Mississippi ADWs, and racing organizations - at casinos around the state. Colorado sports betting launched May Arkansas sports betting Arkansas sports betting began in July at.

Britain abolishes off-course betting tax. Wed, Mar 7, , Paul O'Hehir. The British government will abolish off-course betting tax from the beginning of. What should you know about tax on sports betting? Of course, the IRS wants you to report all your taxable income, and if you don't you could. induced the U.K. Government to initiate a large-scale review of betting duty. chains dominate the off-course fixed odds market: Ladbrokes, William Hill, and.