9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the winnings from bets on golf matches by a professional golfer constitute taxable income under Case II of Schedule D, and if they are analogous to gratuities for services rendered. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the taxability of winnings from bets on golf matches made by a professional golfer under Case II of Schedule D. The key provision in question states that tax extends to all profits arising from employments. The core issue is whether these winnings arise from the golfer's employment or vocation. The Crown argues that as a golf professional, the winnings are part of the vocation and hence taxable, akin to clergyman's Easter offerings or a waiter's gratuities. Conversely, the Respondent contends that the winnings do not truly stem from the vocation but from the bets themselves, with the vocation merely providing the opportunity for betting. The Respondent's counsel argues that the winnings cannot be viewed as gratuities for services rendered, citing a legal precedent emphasizing that payments substantially for services rendered accrue by reason of the office. The disparity between typical professional fees and betting winnings underscores this distinction. Additionally, the Respondent's counsel rebuts the Crown's argument of organizing betting efforts based on skill and reputation, drawing parallels to a case involving backing horses, where minimal organization did not constitute a business. Ultimately, the judge concurs with the Respondent's arguments and the Commissioners' decision, ruling that the winnings do not arise from the employment or vocation of the golfer. The judge rejects the analogy to gratuities for services rendered and dismisses the notion of organized betting business. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs, affirming that the winnings are not taxable income under Case II of Schedule D.
|
