[1eyedjack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34537024

[Trinidad]

This highlights a big cultural difference with many European countries where it is quite obvious that bridge, go, draughts (or checkers) and chess are sports. And there e.g. hunting is not considered a sport.

Rik

[Vampyr]

I guess now the battle has to shift to changing the law so that mind sports receive exemption from VAT and the other advantages at accrue to "sports". A lot harder to do

[1eyedjack]

 Vampyr, on 2015-October-15, 03:58, said:

A lot harder to do

Possibly, possibly not.

It is in one sense very hard, because they have already tried once and failed, and each appeal to a higher court adds to the difficulty as a borderline decision would tend to align with the lower court's findings.

But the VAT treatment in other EU countries is (or should be) a compelling argument in the VAT treatment in the UK, which point may not have had any relevance to the case just heard.

[billw55]

I have always maintained that bridge is not a sport, in the normal sense of the word as used in common English.

However, that by itself, does not render it unworthy of special treatment such as tax exemptions. I don't know much about British tax law. But I see no reason that bridge should not qualify for an exemption that physical sports get - even though it is not a sport.

[mamos]

My understanding is that the judge has not ruled one way or another whether bridge is a sport. He has simply ruled that Sport England could make the decision that bridge did no qualify as a sport for their purposes.

Quote from BBC report

"The issue he had considered was whether Sport England officials had "erred in law" when refusing to classify bridge as a sport, the judge said - not the "broad, somewhat philosophical question" as to whether or not bridge is a sport."

Sport England continue to maintain that their job is to promote physical well-being. Pretty sad I think.

Mike

[el mister]

 billw55, on 2015-October-15, 06:22, said:

I have always maintained that bridge is not a sport, in the normal sense of the word as used in common English.

However, that by itself, does not render it unworthy of special treatment such as tax exemptions. I don't know much about British tax law. But I see no reason that bridge should not qualify for an exemption that physical sports get - even though it is not a sport.

Sport England (the administrative body for sports funding) had let a few soft ones through such as darts and snooker, so probably felt they needed to draw a line in the sand. Otherwise you'll end up with dungeons and dragons players asking for VAT relief.

It's a shame the game is being held up to (mild) ridicule in the UK with this decision, as obv no one thinks bridge is a sport. But it is clearly (IMHO) deserving of the financial support that sports get in the shape of tax relief etc., so maybe a way forward can be found for mind sports to be given separate treatment.

[billw55]

I am curious about this VAT, how it works, and how it applies to organized bridge. What exactly is being taxed? Revenue? Profit? Property?

[Hanoi5]

 Trinidad, on 2015-October-15, 03:57, said:

This highlights a big cultural difference with many European countries where it is quite obvious that bridge, go, draughts (or checkers) and chess are sports. And there e.g. hunting is not considered a sport.

Rik

Charles De Gaulle was right ;-)

[paulg]

 el mister, on 2015-October-15, 08:09, said:

Sport England (the administrative body for sports funding) had let a few soft ones through such as darts and snooker, so probably felt they needed to draw a line in the sand. Otherwise you'll end up with dungeons and dragons players asking for VAT relief.

Sport England has nothing to do with VAT relief.

[paulg]

 billw55, on 2015-October-15, 08:29, said:

I am curious about this VAT, how it works, and how it applies to organized bridge. What exactly is being taxed? Revenue? Profit? Property?

VAT, essentially the same as sales tax in the USA, is currently charged on entry fees at a rate of 20%.

[billw55]

 paulg, on 2015-October-15, 08:59, said:

VAT, essentially the same as sales tax in the USA, is currently charged on entry fees at a rate of 20%.

Aha, ok. So a $10 entry becomes a $12 entry, with the government collecting the extra $2. And this applies to club games I suppose? Or just tournaments?

I agree it seems a nuisance.

[WellSpyder]

 billw55, on 2015-October-15, 10:14, said:

Aha, ok. So a $10 entry becomes a $12 entry, with the government collecting the extra $2. And this applies to club games I suppose? Or just tournaments?

I agree it seems a nuisance.

It does not apply to smaller club games since there is an annual turnover threshold below which the selling organisation (ie the club) does not need to account for VAT. But it certainly applies to national tournaments.

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2015-October-15, 10:14, said:

Aha, ok. So a $10 entry becomes a $12 entry, with the government collecting the extra $2. And this applies to club games I suppose? Or just tournaments?

I agree it seems a nuisance.

It's not just a nuisance - 20% to the government on all goods and services is daylight robbery.

[billw55]

 Vampyr, on 2015-October-15, 11:49, said:

It's not just a nuisance - 20% to the government on all goods and services is daylight robbery.

I suppose one could see it that way. But things must be paid for. Is your government running a surplus? If not, which services/spending would you cut in order to reduce the VAT? Or would you raise some other tax to compensate? Perhaps increase borrowing? Just wondering.

[WGF_Flame]

I think what the court said is not that bridge isnt sport, but that given the enlish union definition of sport, bridge is not a sport.

[PhantomSac]

 billw55, on 2015-October-15, 06:22, said:

I have always maintained that bridge is not a sport, in the normal sense of the word as used in common English.

However, that by itself, does not render it unworthy of special treatment such as tax exemptions. I don't know much about British tax law. But I see no reason that bridge should not qualify for an exemption that physical sports get - even though it is not a sport.

Sums up my thoughts exactly.

[Vampyr]

 billw55, on 2015-October-15, 12:18, said:

I suppose one could see it that way. But things must be paid for. Is your government running a surplus? If not, which services/spending would you cut in order to reduce the VAT? Or would you raise some other tax to compensate? Perhaps increase borrowing? Just wondering.

I would be less generous with welfare. You can stay on the dole forever if you choose not to work, and receive housing benefit on top of that.


I'm not saying that you get loads of money, but it is enough to live on, and a lot of people choose this life.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2015-October-15, 16:22, said:

I would be less generous with welfare. You can stay on the dole forever if you choose not to work, and receive housing benefit on top of that.

I'm not saying that you get loads of money, but it is enough to live on, and a lot of people choose this life.

Since we don't have systemic full employment, people do not, in general, choose this life.

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2015-October-15, 16:25, said:

Since we don't have systemic full employment, people do not, in general, choose this life.

Some do not choose it, but many do.