Are all my spread bet profits tax free?

[postman]

You had your one chance.
Lúidín

And you never presented one fact to support your opinion.

 

[NickBk]

A fine imposed for not paying the relevant tax..who ever said the fine was not related to the underlying tax due..what is wrong with you people..this is really getting so stupid it is beyond belief
Lúidín

The point being it was suggested earlier, if you read some other posts, that you could just get a fine and it might be for something else but they get you for another thing to even it up.

Glad you agree any fine would reference the relevant tax, as to have one so knowledgeable onside makes me feel on top of my game. Cheers

 

[postman]

A fine imposed for not paying the relevant tax..who ever said the fine was not related to the underlying tax due..what is wrong with you people..this is really getting so stupid it is beyond belief
Lúidín

I think the point you should consider is that no one ever said the fine WAS related to spread betting, your just making an assumption, and that as we all know makes an ASS out of U and err well YOU frankly.

 

[Lúidín]

Ok..i will keep it as simple as possible..it is up to you to declare income..not up to revenue to declare it for you..tax authorities take a very dim view of people whose only source of income is not declared..whole point of arguement..so..if anyone is stupid enough to think they can get away without paying tax on sb..if it is only sourcebof income..then..quite frankly..they are a fool..and there is no way in the world they will win their case if it goes in front of a judge..if you can not understand what i have said..then you need to start thinking differently..ad it shows you have a limited way of interpretation..which can cost you a lot of money when it comes to tax authorities
Lúidín

 

[postman]

Ok..i will keep it as simple as possible..it is up to you to declare income..not up to revenue to declare it for you..tax authorities take a very dim view of people whose only source of income is not declared..whole point of arguement..so..if anyone is stupid enough to think they can get away without paying tax on sb..if it is only sourcebof income..then..quite frankly..they are a fool..and there is no way in the world they will win their case if it goes in front of a judge..if you can not understand what i have said..then you need to start thinking differently..ad it shows you have a limited way of interpretation..which can cost you a lot of money when it comes to tax authorities
Lúidín

Sorry to keep repeating myself but this is your opinion. Where is it coming from, what are your sources for this information? Please point me to a place I can go to and read where a spread better has paid tax in the UK. Its not too much to ask, and it will end the discussion.
I cannot prove a negative, thats science for you. It is up to you to prove a positive and you haven't.

 

[counter_violent]

Ok..i will keep it as simple as possible..it is up to you to declare income..not up to revenue to declare it for you..tax authorities take a very dim view of people whose only source of income is not declared..whole point of arguement..so..if anyone is stupid enough to think they can get away without paying tax on sb..if it is only sourcebof income..then..quite frankly..they are a fool..and there is no way in the world they will win their case if it goes in front of a judge..if you can not understand what i have said..then you need to start thinking differently..ad it shows you have a limited way of interpretation..which can cost you a lot of money when it comes to tax authorities
Lúidín

And where has this been tested ?
We are all waiting very patiently !

 

[timsk]

...so..if anyone is stupid enough to think they can get away without paying tax on sb..if it is only sourcebof income..then..quite frankly..they are a fool...
Lúidín

Hi Luidin et al,
I invite you to make me look stupid and foolish by providing solid FACTS that are supported by solid EVIDENCE to back your claims, in the exactly the same way that those of us who believe that SB is tax free have provided solid FACTS supported by solid EVIDENCE to back our claims. If you can do that, then your opinion becomes something more substantive and we all will stand some chance of breaking out of the endless circular nature of this discussion.

Until then, no amount of astonishment at the naivety of fools who are stupid enough to think that SB is tax free will get you anywhere! So please, ditch the insults and address the points made and supply appropriate evidence to support your claims. Thanking you kindly in advance!

Tim.

 

[NickBk]

Really we are the fools here.

I nearly stopped posting until I get enticed in by the willful stupidity/bating that exists and pretends to be considered opinion.

What is it 10, 12 or 20 people all providing reasoned argument and facts to argue with the deaf and blind posters and people who would make Hans Christian Andersen seem like a sufferer of writers block.

We should just stop and get on with something productive. I know I am -))

 

[Lúidín]

When you deal with the tax authorities, you have to prove, not the tax authorities disprove.
If there has never been a case brought before a judge in the UK, that means noting, as a person should only be concerned with their own tax affairs.
Again, for those who can not understand what the tax authorities will tell you, if you care to ask them, go seek professional advice, and you won't be long getting your answer. If you take seriously what people say on a silly internet form, then you are even a bigger fool.
Lúidín

 

[timsk]

. . . If you take seriously what people say on a silly internet form, then you are even a bigger fool.
Lúidín

Good to see the point I made in my last post really hitting home. Besides, this isn't a silly internet forum, this is Trade2Win!

 

[postman]

When you deal with the tax authorities, you have to prove, not the tax authorities disprove.
If there has never been a case brought before a judge in the UK, that means noting, as a person should only be concerned with their own tax affairs.
Again, for those who can not understand what the tax authorities will tell you, if you care to ask them, go seek professional advice, and you won't be long getting your answer. If you take seriously what people say on a silly internet form, then you are even a bigger fool.
Lúidín

Your empty threats, name calling and lack of evidence bear all the hallmarks of a troll and in future you will be treated as such.

 

[Lúidín]

Your empty threats, name calling and lack of evidence bear all the hallmarks of a troll and in future you will be treated as such.

Oh my, now I am very worried, maybe I should change my tune and get back into favour with the majority.
Some hope.

Lúidín

 

[Forexmospherian]

Heres a guy with a pair of balls who trades regular shares and spreadbets but doesnt pay tax on the spreadbetting part of his winnings. I mean who would be that silly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ll-explains-how-to-win-at-spread-betting.html

"Most impressively, he warned in November 2007 that Northern Rock's shares would be worth 5p and that the bank's woes represented the "greatest shorting opportunity" he'd ever seen. He took his own advice, and booked his usual £1m profit, but apparently he could have won more.
Thanks to an oversight, he incurred a tax liability of £300,000 when the usual bookies couldn't take large enough punts and he had to put part of his bet through agency brokers."

Hi Postman

Glad you bought this guy up

I don't think with his record he stands a chance against the HMRC and other financial bodies he has crossed etc

Have a look at this link.

http://financialtrolls.blogspot.co.uk/p/simon-cakwell.html

Note he was struck off as a Chartered Accountant as well

So many things you and some of the other members have been saying is incorrect - unfortunately not been around much today - but will get round to covering them later.

It is so obvious you have had no real dealing with the HMRC etc - ie with regards them taking you to court - They are just not any other company or industry - they are a government body with special powers.

Still will cover more during this next week on this subject and would love to hear from any member who has been concerned about their own tax position and has taken proper professional Tax advice from a reputable company.

In 80-95% of cases - there will be no concern - spread betting is tax free - so why Timsk thinks it would have a major effect on the spreadbetting industry - I just don't know ?

Still again as mentioned so many times - that's his opinion - just like you have your opinion and I have mine ;-)


Regards


F

 

[timsk]

. . . So many things you and some of the other members have been saying is incorrect - unfortunately not been around much today - but will get round to covering them later.

FoMo,
Please tell us something new, don't simply repeat the same stuff you've repeated 100 times already.

In 80-95% of cases - there will be no concern - spread betting is tax free - so why Timsk thinks it would have a major effect on the spreadbetting industry - I just don't know ?

Apologies if I didn't express my point very clearly. Allow me to re-phrase it. If, as you, Lúidín and others assert, tax is payable on spread betting profits (sometimes), then the spread betting industry as a whole would go into meltdown. The reason why is simple. It's main USP is that it's tax free. Remove that USP and there would be few good reasons remaining as to why prospective clients would choose spread betting over other financial vehicles.

Your argument that it's free for 80 - 90% but not for the remainder is totally spurious and, until you provide solid evidence to support your claim, is completely meaningless. And the reason for that is because no one trading with a spread betting firm would be sure which group they fall into: the 80 - 90% group who don't pay tax, or the 10% group who do. Unless it's very clearly defined - as in completely black and white - who would take the chance? Answer: no one. Fortunately, they don't have to, because this small group of profitable traders who pay tax is a figment of your imagination; they don't exist.

Spread betting firms like ETX (that I posted a link to right at the start of this thread) simply wouldn't be allowed to advertise their products on the strength of profits being 100% tax free 100% of the time for ALL clients if that wasn't true. They wouldn't get away with it, period. They'd have the FCA and Trading Standards crawling all over them and they'd be shut down in an instant. And if one SB firm goes belly up (because of false advertising claims and clients paying tax of their profits), the others would surely follow suit. The net result of that would be that HMRC would lose all the revenue they currently enjoy. The bottom line is this: it's in the interests of HMRC and the government that spread betting is - and remains - tax free. They will lose money - and plenty of it - if they remove the tax free status. Sure, one or two big hitters like Evil Knieval will get away with huge profits, but that's more than offset by the huge revenue they receive from taxing the firms themselves. Besides, the likes of EK are good publicity for the spread betting industry. It attracts new punters which means more profits for the spread betting firms and (even) more revenue for HMRC and the government.

Still again as mentioned so many times - that's his opinion - just like you have your opinion and I have mine ;-)

No, no, no FoMo. I'm the one providing FACTS supported by evidence; you are the one providing nothing more than personal opinion along with a few anecdotes that you refuse to expand upon in any meaningful detail. That you don't want to discuss your personal circumstances on a public forum is fair enough, but you can't have it both ways and expect members to believe what you say just because you're a self-proclaimed 'expert'. C'mon, do us all a favour, lol! I've asked you time and time again to provide FACTS backed by solid EVIDENCE and, so far, you've produced diddlysquat, zilch, nada, nothing.
Tim.

 

[postman]

 

[postman]

.

 

[counter_violent]

FoMo,
Please tell us something new, don't simply repeat the same stuff you've repeated 100 times already.


Apologies if I didn't express my point very clearly. Allow me to re-phrase it. If, as you, Lúidín and others assert, tax is payable on spread betting profits (sometimes), then the spread betting industry as a whole would go into meltdown. The reason why is simple. It's main USP is that it's tax free. Remove that USP and there would be few good reasons remaining as to why prospective clients would choose spread betting over other financial vehicles.

Your argument that it's free for 80 - 90% but not for the remainder is totally spurious and, until you provide solid evidence to support your claim, is completely meaningless. And the reason for that is because no one trading with a spread betting firm would be sure which group they fall into: the 80 - 90% group who don't pay tax, or the 10% group who do. Unless it's very clearly defined - as in completely black and white - who would take the chance? Answer: no one. Fortunately, they don't have to, because this small group of profitable traders who pay tax is a figment of your imagination; they don't exist.

Spread betting firms like ETX (that I posted a link to right at the start of this thread) simply wouldn't be allowed to advertise their products on the strength of profits being 100% tax free 100% of the time for ALL clients if that wasn't true. They wouldn't get away with it, period. They'd have the FCA and Trading Standards crawling all over them and they'd be shut down in an instant. And if one SB firm goes belly up (because of false advertising claims and clients paying tax of their profits), the others would surely follow suit. The net result of that would be that HMRC would lose all the revenue they currently enjoy. The bottom line is this: it's in the interests of HMRC and the government that spread betting is - and remains - tax free. They will lose money - and plenty of it - if they remove the tax free status. Sure, one or two big hitters like Evil Knieval will get away with huge profits, but that's more than offset by the huge revenue they receive from taxing the firms themselves. Besides, the likes of EK are good publicity for the spread betting industry. It attracts new punters which means more profits for the spread betting firms and (even) more revenue for HMRC and the government.


No, no, no FoMo. I'm the one providing FACTS supported by evidence; you are the one providing nothing more than personal opinion along with a few anecdotes that you refuse to expand upon in any meaningful detail. That you don't want to discuss your personal circumstances on a public forum is fair enough, but you can't have it both ways and expect members to believe what you say just because you're a self-proclaimed 'expert'. C'mon, do us all a favour, lol! I've asked you time and time again to provide FACTS backed by solid EVIDENCE and, so far, you've produced diddlysquat, zilch, nada, nothing.
Tim.

So, exactly the same as his trading claims then...backed up by, well, absolutely no proof whatsoever !

On the off chance that anyone from I R is viewing.....enjoy ! I know I will !

 

[ffsear]

The world is yet to find someone whos smart enough to make six figures spread betting, yet dumb enough to pay tax on it.

 

[Forexmospherian]

FoMo,
Please tell us something new, don't simply repeat the same stuff you've repeated 100 times already.


Apologies if I didn't express my point very clearly. Allow me to re-phrase it. If, as you, Lúidín and others assert, tax is payable on spread betting profits (sometimes), then the spread betting industry as a whole would go into meltdown. The reason why is simple. It's main USP is that it's tax free. Remove that USP and there would be few good reasons remaining as to why prospective clients would choose spread betting over other financial vehicles.

Your argument that it's free for 80 - 90% but not for the remainder is totally spurious and, until you provide solid evidence to support your claim, is completely meaningless. And the reason for that is because no one trading with a spread betting firm would be sure which group they fall into: the 80 - 90% group who don't pay tax, or the 10% group who do. Unless it's very clearly defined - as in completely black and white - who would take the chance? Answer: no one. Fortunately, they don't have to, because this small group of profitable traders who pay tax is a figment of your imagination; they don't exist.

Spread betting firms like ETX (that I posted a link to right at the start of this thread) simply wouldn't be allowed to advertise their products on the strength of profits being 100% tax free 100% of the time for ALL clients if that wasn't true. They wouldn't get away with it, period. They'd have the FCA and Trading Standards crawling all over them and they'd be shut down in an instant. And if one SB firm goes belly up (because of false advertising claims and clients paying tax of their profits), the others would surely follow suit. The net result of that would be that HMRC would lose all the revenue they currently enjoy. The bottom line is this: it's in the interests of HMRC and the government that spread betting is - and remains - tax free. They will lose money - and plenty of it - if they remove the tax free status. Sure, one or two big hitters like Evil Knieval will get away with huge profits, but that's more than offset by the huge revenue they receive from taxing the firms themselves. Besides, the likes of EK are good publicity for the spread betting industry. It attracts new punters which means more profits for the spread betting firms and (even) more revenue for HMRC and the government.


No, no, no FoMo. I'm the one providing FACTS supported by evidence; you are the one providing nothing more than personal opinion along with a few anecdotes that you refuse to expand upon in any meaningful detail. That you don't want to discuss your personal circumstances on a public forum is fair enough, but you can't have it both ways and expect members to believe what you say just because you're a self-proclaimed 'expert'. C'mon, do us all a favour, lol! I've asked you time and time again to provide FACTS backed by solid EVIDENCE and, so far, you've produced diddlysquat, zilch, nada, nothing.
Tim.

Hi Tim

This is absolutely so unbelievable - we are just so far apart on opinions here - we may as well be on different planets.

It is absolutely ludicrous to say SB companies would go into meltdown by the HMRC admitting there is a proportion of traders who will not get "tax free status"
- especially when this proportion is so small.

You argument just does not make sense.

Its a known FACT - that for spreadbetting to work - more punters have to lose than win. In the trading industry - we all know that somewhere between 70 and 95% of all traders lose more money than they win.

Nobody knows the exact number - but in the UK for government classification - the figure is suppose to be a ratio of over 75% that will lose their money for betting agents to have spreadbetting status

The fact that we are left with 25% approx. - could be 10% - could even be 30% - who do win more than they lose and have a positive winning balance - whether £1 or £1 million per annum - then only a small percentage of those so called "punters" or traders will actually not be already paying some form of tax to the HMRC - ie the majority will have other income streams etc etc - its maybe only a few small percent who do not fit the real "tax free criteria".

Now if you don't agree on that part please tell me - but why do the 75% of spreadbetters who lose every year even keep on playing - because if they knew the facts - why do they bother ??

FACT - the SB industry as changed over the last 5 -7 years. Why do they advise all the clients to take individual tax advice ??

Please tell me Tim ??

Its because they know - there will be a few - might be 2% -might be 7% of their clients who do not fit the tax free status - that's why.

Now - let's get this back to more facts .

I had advice originally from both Grant Thornton ( GT |) another to 10 UK accountancy firm - the KPMG - ( a top 4 world wide accountancy firm)

Their advise was totally clear with me - FACT

You will not be able to look at investing totally in FX spreadbetting and expect to remain with a tax free status - whilst not contributing to the HMRC any other form of income tax etc .

So - I would fit in that small minority - it still might be a few thousand traders - but that's a fact.

I can understand many saying well why is this not been broadcast or made totally public.

Simple

Its not in the interest of either the HMRC or the SB companies - they both prefer it to remain under the "radar" - for totally different reasons.

I personally don't want to now have to spend a few thousand pounds getting the same advice from another tops 3 accountancy firms - but I do suggest that if any members her in the forum - are full time professionals - only spreadbetting and are full time - paying no other form of income tax to the HMRC and are making over say £25k+ per annum - that they due pay for proper individual tax advice based on their own circumstances.

Now I am sure you also would agree with that Tim - and if you don't - well get your office etc to ring up 10 separate SB companies - and see what they say.

I will also have to find Random 1234 previous comment from last year or so - his father was a top chartered Accountant - and he had originally spent time training with a large accountancy group - and he too confirmed their advice - which was exactly the same as I received from KPMG

More to follow - even though it should only be of interest to a very small percentage of SB traders - the other large majority have nothing to worry about - a long as they pay tax on their other jobs etc and are not behind etc with the tax returns and payments etc etc

Regards


F

 

[counter_violent]

Hi Tim

This is absolutely so unbelievable - we are just so far apart on opinions here - we may as well be on different planets.

It is absolutely ludicrous to say SB companies would go into meltdown by the HMRC admitting there is a proportion of traders who will not get "tax free status"
- especially when this proportion is so small.

You argument just does not make sense.

Its a known FACT - that for spreadbetting to work - more punters have to lose than win. In the trading industry - we all know that somewhere between 70 and 95% of all traders lose more money than they win.

Nobody knows the exact number - but in the UK for government classification - the figure is suppose to be a ratio of over 75% that will lose their money for betting agents to have spreadbetting status

The fact that we are left with 25% approx. - could be 10% - could even be 30% - who do win more than they lose and have a positive winning balance - whether £1 or £1 million per annum - then only a small percentage of those so called "punters" or traders will actually not be already paying some form of tax to the HMRC - ie the majority will have other income streams etc etc - its maybe only a few small percent who do not fit the real "tax free criteria".

Now if you don't agree on that part please tell me - but why do the 75% of spreadbetters who lose every year even keep on playing - because if they knew the facts - why do they bother ??

FACT - the SB industry as changed over the last 5 -7 years. Why do they advise all the clients to take individual tax advice ??

Please tell me Tim ??

Its because they know - there will be a few - might be 2% -might be 7% of their clients who do not fit the tax free status - that's why.

Now - let's get this back to more facts .

I had advice originally from both Grant Thornton ( GT |) another to 10 UK accountancy firm - the KPMG - ( a top 4 world wide accountancy firm)

Their advise was totally clear with me - FACT

You will not be able to look at investing totally in FX spreadbetting and expect to remain with a tax free status - whilst not contributing to the HMRC any other form of income tax etc .

So - I would fit in that small minority - it still might be a few thousand traders - but that's a fact.

I can understand many saying well why is this not been broadcast or made totally public.

Simple

Its not in the interest of either the HMRC or the SB companies - they both prefer it to remain under the "radar" - for totally different reasons.

I personally don't want to now have to spend a few thousand pounds getting the same advice from another tops 3 accountancy firms - but I do suggest that if any members her in the forum - are full time professionals - only spreadbetting and are full time - paying no other form of income tax to the HMRC and are making over say £25k+ per annum - that they due pay for proper individual tax advice based on their own circumstances.

Now I am sure you also would agree with that Tim - and if you don't - well get your office etc to ring up 10 separate SB companies - and see what they say.

I will also have to find Random 1234 previous comment from last year or so - his father was a top chartered Accountant - and he had originally spent time training with a large accountancy group - and he too confirmed their advice - which was exactly the same as I received from KPMG

More to follow - even though it should only be of interest to a very small percentage of SB traders - the other large majority have nothing to worry about - a long as they pay tax on their other jobs etc and are not behind etc with the tax returns and payments etc etc

Regards


F