Are all my spread bet profits tax free?

all changed from 2004 /5 and 2015

Apart from this conversation, which was substantially the same, back then. ;)

85% of all spreadbetter will have no problem

This implies (and actually "implies" is putting it very mildly) that 15% of UK spreadbetters will have a problem over income tax. I don't believe that to be so. We'd know about that. There'd be some examples, somewhere, and a chorus of people representing those 15% who do have a problem, saying "I have a problem". But we didn't see that in the 2004/5 conversations (not that I was trading then, myself - I was still at high school, but they're still on the board), and we don't see it in the 2014/5 conversations, either.
 
Apart from this conversation, which was substantially the same, back then. ;)



This implies (and actually "implies" is putting it very mildly) that 15% of UK spreadbetters will have a problem over income tax. I don't believe that to be so. We'd know about that. There'd be some examples, somewhere, and a chorus of people representing those 15% who do have a problem, saying "I have a problem". But we didn't see that in the 2004/5 conversations (not that I was trading then, myself - I was still at high school, but they're still on the board), and we don't see it in the 2014/5 conversations, either.


Hi alexaherself

Sorry would have to disagree with what you are reading into my figures

After the WW recession in 2008 /09 and change in government in 2010 - the HMRC started to review many of its tax rules and was looking to cut out many loop holes that exist - ie this being tax avoidance rather than plain illegal tax evasion.

This can be seen with several small changes in Gambling laws from 2010 right up to even this month.

Back in 2004/5 etc - it was all a bit more "laissez faire" - remember - it was the boom time - things were good.

With regards to 85% of all spreadbetters - remember at least 75% will be losers and might have no winning during a full tax year and more than likely the other 10 -15% + who win are in work and paying income tax - and will not come under any "associated activity" caveat as Barjon ( who had worked with the old IR ) calls it

So all those punters etc - they should have no problem at all.

But as you know yourself as I remember you pointing this out on a comment i made on another thread - 30% of all income tax comes from 1% of the whole working population and so maybe the 5-10% of all spreadbetter winners might be worth pursuing - but back in pre 2008 - this was never looked at.

With regards to how many people who are behind with their tax affairs or are receiving benefits or claims that might be quesionable etc - i have not got a clue on these matters - maybe you might know yourself more on this matter if its a subject you have studied or are interested in ?


Regards


F
 
:LOL::LOL::LOL: How did I know you'd pounce on that bit? Suits you down to the ground doesn't it? And all so we'll be convinced that you are one of the best traders in the world and making such a fortune as to turn HMRC green eyed with envy. The caveat is explained in the legal precedent if you care to read it and it is, of course, something I've repeated again and again.

Nope, you won't produce evidence of your self proclaimed trading prowess and you won't produce evidence of HMRC's taxing your spreadbetting.

Words, words, words are no substitutes I'm afraid.

Produce the evidence - on both counts - and I'll be the first to praise you to the skies and eat humble pie. In the meantime I resign from the field and leave you the self proclaimed victor as well as the self proclaimed master trader.

Well there is no question to me being an "expert" FX trader now Jon - so many have now had to eat humble pie - and admit - OK - he's good - although maybe you have not noticed this at all ??

If you want me to name a few members here who would not question my trading expertise or prowess - I can with no problem

Now on too the next subject and sorry you seem to being getting quite frustrated and annoyed with me leading you to the crux of the matter - that you had mentioned - but seemed reluctant to clarify it more?

Maybe Jon you also might not believe that I worked for approx 3 years with Richard Branson and was Director on 2 of his companies back in the mid 80's

I know that subject brings great delight to CV as he also thinks its all made up.

No two ways about it - many here do need to eat "humble pie" - but I am not really bothered about that ( It is 100% true with RB as well ) - nor whether members here like me - or hate my guts - its all water of a duck's back to me

All I ask for -a bit of respect and courtesy - and like wise I will also try and be the same with all my comments

I am sorry if you no longer want to highlight more of the as you call it "associated activity " caveat - no problem - I can certainly do that on your behalf

However feel free to join in again when I provide more evidence

Regards


F
 
. . . However feel free to join in again when I provide more evidence
FoMo,
This implies that you've already provided some - which you haven't! We're on page 15 of the thread and you're yet to provide a single shred of real evidence. As you're struggling so lamentably, allow me to lend a helping hand. . .

As you can't find any official documentation from HRMC and/or spread betters who have had to pay income tax on their winnings (I wonder why that might be, lol), how about coming at it from the other side. If, as you allege, some winners pay tax on their winnings then, by the same token, some losers will be able to offset their costs and losses against tax. Given that this forum is chock full of people who have lost money spread betting, finding one single trader out of the 300k+ membership who has successfully been able to offset their costs and losses against income tax will be a piece of cake.

Just one - that's all I ask - surely you can do that at least?
:cool:
 
FoMo,
This implies that you've already provided some - which you haven't! We're on page 15 of the thread and you're yet to provide a single shred of real evidence. As you're struggling so lamentably, allow me to lend a helping hand. . .

As you can't find any official documentation from HRMC and/or spread betters who have had to pay income tax on their winnings (I wonder why that might be, lol), how about coming at it from the other side. If, as you allege, some winners pay tax on their winnings then, by the same token, some losers will be able to offset their costs and losses against tax. Given that this forum is chock full of people who have lost money spread betting, finding one single trader out of the 300k+ membership who has successfully been able to offset their costs and losses against income tax will be a piece of cake.

Just one - that's all I ask - surely you can do that at least?
:cool:

Tim

I have supplied 4 pieces if clear evidence supporting my case during the last few weeks on this thread

As I have repeated - Spread betting wins are tax free to spread betters

BUT

Not all people who take up spreadbetting will be allowed to enjoy tax free wins - because of many reasons

I am here awaiting draghi as 6 45 pm and his speech

After I have had my tea and watched some footy - I will summarise the 4 clear pieces of evidence - and maybe add a fifth or more

It will take me at least 15 mins to do this - so it will be later on tonight

Hopefully then you can say yes or no to each piece of evidence

Please do not think thats it - I have more to come as well

Regards


F
 
. . . After I have had my tea and watched some footy - I will summarise the 4 clear pieces of evidence - and maybe add a fifth or more . . .
FoMo - please don't bother - it really is a complete waste of your time. I won't bother reading what you post because I don't need to: I can recite all your so called 'evidence' (that's nothing of the sort) off by heart - as I've read it that many times. Telling me the same thing yet again merely dilutes your argument - it doesn't strengthen it. OMG, you've got me doing it now - repeating myself. Boring isn't it!
 
However feel free to join in again when I provide more evidence

As was pointed out - albeit in a slightly different context - at the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland, you can't provide "more" evidence when you haven't yet provided any evidence at all. ;)
 
Well I will be providing the evidence so far again here another time

You dont have to read it - but love to here from some other members who might not have such a big bias against what I am saying

This for me is a "brick wall "attitude by many members here -

Its so obvious members have not taken it in -so maybe in just one extra comment - with them listed - it will then hit home

I am no way letting this matter drop - as it already cost me money in 2009 - and I have total faith with the guys who have been advising me - in fact one of the accountants is a personal friend from over 20 years

Back later - with what I call hard evidence of hows it changing and how the HMRC are carrying it out in a very clever way - allowing them to stay within their own guidelines and gambling laws

Please just dont read this thread - that might be easier - just do what the spreadbetting companies are now advising all their clients - ie as below

Remember, profits from financial spreadbetting are currently free from Capital Gains Tax or UK stamp duty, although tax laws may well change in the future. Tax treatment also depends on the individual circumstances of each client.

IG Spreadbetters caveat on spreadbetting being Tax Free -

* Tax laws are subject to change and depend on individual circumstances.

City Index add to their disclaimer -

*Spread betting and CFD trading are exempt from UK stamp duty. Spread betting is also exempt from UK Capital Gains Tax. However, tax laws are subject to change and depend on individual circumstances. Please seek independent advice if necessary.

So - have you taken independent advice and are your individual circumstances falling under the HMRC caveat ?? - meaning - your trades dont produce "winnings" that are tax free - instead they produce "income" - which of course is then taxable





F
 
Last edited:
FoMo - please don't bother - it really is a complete waste of your time. I won't bother reading what you post because I don't need to: I can recite all your so called 'evidence' (that's nothing of the sort) off by heart - as I've read it that many times. Telling me the same thing yet again merely dilutes your argument - it doesn't strengthen it. OMG, you've got me doing it now - repeating myself. Boring isn't it!


Not at all

I totally understand if you dont want to read my "evidence " or more of it - as you have read it that many times - but I can see it has not sunk in - as you are still going on about "winnings" and them being tax free

Yes of course they are - but the HMRC are able under their many "caveats" to point out that your individual tax circumstances do not fit the "spreadbetting criteria" and instead of producing "winnings" that are tax free - you are producing money that is an "income" and therefore can be taxed.

Thats why all Spreadbetting companies are now covering themselves in the small print - and of course the big 5 accountancy firms are all in agreement with their recommendations to all full time - non tax paying professional "consistent" spreadbetters.

I know you just dont believe it - or don't want to - but even your comment is just "taking the michael" asking me to find just one member out of your 300k+ membership who is paying tax on his spreadbetting winnings and able to offset it from with his losses etc

Of course this well never happen for several reasons. For a start there are less than 100k financial spread betting accounts in the UK anyway and if one of those accounts was owed by one of T2W past or current members - they are not going to be taxed on the spreadbetting winnings - if their individual tax circumstances did not meet the HMRC caveat criteria ( not just for doing something illegal- although if you are not paying your tax it still can be a criminal offence ) they would only be taxed on it as "income" and then of course its not covered by the present gambling law - and so does not come under being a "spread bet"

You are welcome to place a warning on all the evidence I have supplied or new evidence not yet shown here - as this is only F''s advice and we at T2W etc still understand all spread betting is Tax free - but we recommend any member to check their own individual circumstances" with a tax accountant or with the local tax office or similar - ie just as the spreadbetting companies do.

With regards to repeating myself - It took over a year for many members here to understand than I can even trade FX and that I am really good - simply because they listened to the "gossip" or the "sheeple" - and did not find the facts out themselves by checking out my daily thread for a few days or week

Maybe that lesson - no matter how many time you repeat yourself - some people will just not want to hear or believe it . If that's the case they should not even bother to read the stuff more than once

Finally - i must repeat - I am not wanting to "scaremonger" - or to catch other members out - I am on the side of the retail FX trader - thats all

Regards


F
 
So where are the alleged 15% of spreadbetters who have a "problem" with this? Where's even one person who has??? :sleep:
 
So where are the alleged 15% of spreadbetters who have a "problem" with this? Where's even one person who has??? :sleep:

Excuse me?

Have you even read anything I have said ??

If you just want an example of one person - I can give you that -

Its me !!!!!!

Please go back through this thread and read what happened to me in my last tax investigation. I had been involved in 3 others previously over approx 20 years - but the other ones had nothing to do with FX trading and spreadbetting - only the last on that took place around 2009 in Birmingham

F
 
haha thanks for giving me a good laugh this morning. Ever heard of the phrase 'self praise is no praise'.



I don't have to bother praising myself nowadays - there are now other members - ( including long established ones ) doing it for me - but they are the ones to properly check me out - not listen to the original rubbish put out by trolls etc saying I was a dodgy vendor etc etc.

Anyway - glad its given you a laugh (y)

Nothing better to start the day off

Good Trading


Regards


F
 
. . . I totally understand if you dont want to read my "evidence " or more of it - as you have read it that many times - but I can see it has not sunk in - as you are still going on about "winnings" and them being tax free

. . . I know you just dont believe it - or don't want to - but even your comment is just "taking the michael" asking me to find just one member out of your 300k+ membership who is paying tax on his spreadbetting winnings and able to offset it from with his losses etc

. . . Maybe that lesson - no matter how many time you repeat yourself - some people will just not want to hear or believe it . If that's the case they should not even bother to read the stuff more than once
FoMo.
On my late mother's grave, cross my heart and hope to die etc., I swear to you that I have absolutely no bias towards anyone or anything in this matter other than solid evidence and hard facts. You produce them and, just as Jon has made clear several times, I will happily eat humble pie and on a sixpence support your allegations. I really am completely neutral. The point being that I've listened, I've read the same points over and over again and please trust me when I say that they have sunk in. Deep down. All of them were fully taken on board by about page three of the thread! So, what's the issue here?

The issue here is that you are prepared to accept theory, opinion, conjecture, personal anecdote and the ramblings of some bloke called Terry as 'fact' and 'evidence'. You're pretty much alone in that. Just about everyone else subscribes to the well established definition of the two words which is none of the above. We all uphold the dictionary definitions which are as follows:

Fact: /fakt/, noun, 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'.
Evidence: /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/, noun, 'the available body of facts (see above definition) or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.


Even those whose natural inclination is agree with you on this want proper evidence. Tom (Orton) wrote in an earlier post: "Upshot is I tend towards believing HMRC reserve the option to pursue any one of us for tax on SB winnings if they can think of a way to do it and if the sums in question are large enough." However, he ends his post thus: "But where's the evidence?"

alexaherself asked for evidence and yet again you referred her to your own experience. Until you back up what you say with real evidence then your story is nothing more than an interesting personal anecdote. I'm sorry if you don't view it this way or don't understand the point. But this is the plain and simple fact of the matter and until you make some attempt to acknowledge and embrace these points - the thread will continue to go nowhere and you will continue to alienate people rather than persuade them to your way of thinking. And that might well be a pity because, like Tom, I'm still open minded to the thought that you might be right and will happily say so when you provide verifiable facts supported by solid evidence. Just so you are in no doubt as to what constitutes real evidence as opposed to theory and opinion etc. I've copied the examples I posted earlier. I apologise for repeating myself, but I thought it would save you time trawling through the thread! :cool:

1. A SB firm that has been sued and/or reported to the regulatory bodies for miss selling their products, i.e. by someone who opened an account and traded with them on the grounds that it was tax free and has then had to pay tax.
2. A directive from Trading Standards or Advertising Standards clearly stating that SB firms can not claim to offer tax free trading.
3. A case where the FCA have been involved following a complaint about SB firms offering tax free trading.
4. Examples where rival brokers (who lose business to SB firms or, alternatively, stand to gain hugely if it can be proven that SB profits are not tax free) call into question the right / ability for SB firms to be allowed to offer tax free trading.
5. Policy documents or letters from HMRC clearing stating that profits made from SB are not tax free. Or, if they are tax free in some cases but not in others, a clear explanation as to who will have to pay tax and under what circumstances etc.

This is what I, Jon, Alexa, Tom and everyone else needs to see and this is the sort of evidence you're going to have to produce to stand any hope of convincing anyone that your allegations have any substance at all.
Tim.
 
FoMo.
On my late mother's grave, cross my heart and hope to die etc., I swear to you that I have absolutely no bias towards anyone or anything in this matter other than solid evidence and hard facts. You produce them and, just as Jon has made clear several times, I will happily eat humble pie and on a sixpence support your allegations. I really am completely neutral. The point being that I've listened, I've read the same points over and over again and please trust me when I say that they have sunk in. Deep down. All of them were fully taken on board by about page three of the thread! So, what's the issue here?

The issue here is that you are prepared to accept theory, opinion, conjecture, personal anecdote and the ramblings of some bloke called Terry as 'fact' and 'evidence'. You're pretty much alone in that. Just about everyone else subscribes to the well established definition of the two words which is none of the above. We all uphold the dictionary definitions which are as follows:

Fact: /fakt/, noun, 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'.
Evidence: /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/, noun, 'the available body of facts (see above definition) or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.


Even those whose natural inclination is agree with you on this want proper evidence. Tom (Orton) wrote in an earlier post: "Upshot is I tend towards believing HMRC reserve the option to pursue any one of us for tax on SB winnings if they can think of a way to do it and if the sums in question are large enough." However, he ends his post thus: "But where's the evidence?"

alexaherself asked for evidence and yet again you referred her to your own experience. Until you back up what you say with real evidence then your story is nothing more than an interesting personal anecdote. I'm sorry if you don't view it this way or don't understand the point. But this is the plain and simple fact of the matter and until you make some attempt to acknowledge and embrace these points - the thread will continue to go nowhere and you will continue to alienate people rather than persuade them to your way of thinking. And that might well be a pity because, like Tom, I'm still open minded to the thought that you might be right and will happily say so when you provide verifiable facts supported by solid evidence. Just so you are in no doubt as to what constitutes real evidence as opposed to theory and opinion etc. I've copied the examples I posted earlier. I apologise for repeating myself, but I thought it would save you time trawling through the thread! :cool:

1. A SB firm that has been sued and/or reported to the regulatory bodies for miss selling their products, i.e. by someone who opened an account and traded with them on the grounds that it was tax free and has then had to pay tax.
2. A directive from Trading Standards or Advertising Standards clearly stating that SB firms can not claim to offer tax free trading.
3. A case where the FCA have been involved following a complaint about SB firms offering tax free trading.
4. Examples where rival brokers (who lose business to SB firms or, alternatively, stand to gain hugely if it can be proven that SB profits are not tax free) call into question the right / ability for SB firms to be allowed to offer tax free trading.
5. Policy documents or letters from HMRC clearing stating that profits made from SB are not tax free. Or, if they are tax free in some cases but not in others, a clear explanation as to who will have to pay tax and under what circumstances etc.

This is what I, Jon, Alexa, Tom and everyone else needs to see and this is the sort of evidence you're going to have to produce to stand any hope of convincing anyone that your allegations have any substance at all.
Tim.

Now I like what you have said there TIm and so will work on those 5 points now and over the week - with as much FACT and evidence currently to hand - but I am sure you can understand whilst I dont want to drag my own personal Tax affairs through a forum - in fact that is one of the reasons I did not pursue a challenge with the HMRC via the courts

Thank you

Regards


F
 
some intersting posts over here

http://www.4networking.biz/Forum/ViewTopic/157141?page=1#p1163909

there is also someone with the chinese/japanese looking face who has a website www.easytaxguidance.com that will provide documents to support your case for a fee.

maybe some people can check out if it is legitimate.

anyway in my view it is quite clear that mr doron is wrong as the words
they must arise from the carrying on of that trade mean that if you are the bookie taking the other side of the gamble and providing THE SERVICES to the punters then you are carrying the trade. this can quite clearly be seen from BIM22019.

that mr Down v Compston was not liable as he was not the boker/bookie offering the services rather the punter see here He was found not to be liable to tax on professional income on the basis that the bets did not arise from the playing services and that there was no organisation to support the view that he was carrying on the business of betting on the games of golf

but Burdge v Pyne was liable as he was considered the bookie provding the gambling services although he in essence was also gambling as he was taking the other side just like ig is gambling by taking your other side.

BIM22019 explains BIM22020 as is clearly written there.

nothing is spoken about whether this is your only income or not . this mr paul doron did not read BIM22019 or just made up his own explanation of what his feelings told him.

regards
 
Still awaiting further information to answer the 5 points raised by Timsk. Some of the points are easy to answer already - but would prefer to able to answer all 5 in one main reply.

Its amazing how Spread betting companies have been changing their wording and covering themselves over the last 5 years - resulting in NONE of them being prepared to say the spreadbetting is tax free for 100% of all its users. As we know inside trading is illegal - and so easily falls under the HMRC spreadbetting exclusion clauses. But so is not paying income tax or PAYE on your main form of earnings via you main work or profession and in worse case scenario can lead to a criminal offence with a maximum of up to 7 years in prison.

Anyway i will be coming back with what I consider conclusive evidence that the HMRC have ways to circumvent their own rules when it makes sense for this to happen.

That's why the government will want to keep spreadbetting as TAX FREE to all proper UK tax payers - as it stops them allowing tax deductions on losses across the board - and of course as we all know anything from 75% to 90% of all spreadbetters lose money anyway.

Regards


F
 
Last edited:
Hi

I was let go just before Christmas (scum bag of a boss) and decided to spread bet.

I've been in an out of trading for the last 15 years, as a sales trader, hedge fund and a day trader at a US prop firm. That was all about 15 years ago and for the last 15 years I've just been a sales guy.

When I was let go at x-mas I had no where to go, so I started spread betting. It's going alright now and I'm wondering if I will have to pay tax if it keeps going well (£5-10k per month on total capital of £10k) or is it all just tax free?

Thank you in advance for any guidance and advice and all the best in trading, never forget it's an art not a science.
Spread betting is completely tax free. So you won't need to pay an tax on your profits/winnings.

Sorry to hear you lost your job, on a positive note well done on your profitable trading.
 
Spread betting is completely tax free. So you won't need to pay an tax on your profits/winnings.

Sorry to hear you lost your job, on a positive note well done on your profitable trading.

Excuse me asking yellowfloyd as I dont know whether you have been reading any of the other info on this thread


1 , What do all spreadbetting companies now ask all their customers to do ??

Well its in the small print - buts it basically saying - check your own individual circumstances - either via local tax office or a quaified accountant who understand tax laws.

2. Yes 90% of all spread betters will have no problem - ie 70 -85% lose money anyway - so they have no overall winnings and then most of other spreadbetters have employment and already pay income tax and PAYE.

3. If you have no other earnings and do not pay income tax or PAYE and make a over £10k net pa from purely spreadbetting on a regular basis - you will be exempt from normal classification and your winnings will be treated differently. Similar if you owe the HMRC any back tax or not up todate etc or have misdeclared etc etc - then similarly - you might find its a different ballgame under their own exemption clauses.

I am doing more research on this matter and already had confirmation from KMPG that NOT every spreadbetter can assume he is guaranteed there is no tax or penalty to pay on his winning - as they can easily be deemed to be income or revenue etc - and then as you may know - its different scenario

Regards


F
 
I was corresponding with a successful full time trader on another forum. He was giving me some advice which included the following -

"Oh, one thing on the spreadbetting "tax-free" - if you ever decide to only make a living from trading, it's not tax free at all. As I found out...

Basically it's tax free if you have another job that makes you enough money to live on. But as soon as your only job is trading, HMRC is VERY interested in the profits you make. At first I thought that my profits will fall into capital gains tax. Sadly, capital gains only applies to assets that you don't trade intraday. Placing multiple trades in a week immediately disqualified me from CGT.

So after paying an arm and a leg in tax last couple of years, I decided to run my trading through my own corporation"
 
  • Like
Reactions: NVP
Top