Aislinn

Yes, I think you are missing something. This same argument could be made to any new drilling, fracking or other fossil fuel extraction. The Saudi's could equally say, 'oh, well, you'd just be buying the oil somewhere else anyway so really we're just providing a different source!' The fact of the matter is that this gas which would otherwise go unextracted is now going to get extracted and the carbon released into the atmosphere which is precisely what we don't need from an environmental standpoint. Now, it's totally fair to believe that current manx economic and energy security interests should come before a slow moving, global environmental catastrophe that will hit poor nations far before it effects us (if it ever even does), but let's not invent up some absurd rationale as to why it's somehow ethically permissible to extract in this case. This is precisely why it's called the _tragedy_ of the commons

I'm surprised no one has yet brought up the alarming statistic that the majority of 18-24y/o feel highly lonely here. This is terrible if this is true! Why do I find this more concerning than people deciding to eat too much? What can we do to connect these young people together. I'm not surprised so many school graduates want to leave off to the UK as fast as they possibly can.

Why people enjoy the sensation of accelerating fast is a completely different matter. The main thing is that they can experience it legally despite the 70mph speed limit, and that's why they still make cars with bigger engines. And also why people buy fast motorcycles. I'm sure a faster acceleration would have helped considerably in the case with the audi that we just saw, but I agree the practical benefits are very small.

It's always been about the acceleration. Consider - anyone with a motorcycle with an engine larger than 125cc.

I'm not sure about other providers but I pay very expensive roaming charges with my uk sky sim here. It shouldn't be too hard to find the contract document for each provider and see what prices they list under Isle of Man. There's usually a large table in there with all the countries in the world listed alongside their prices per minute/text/MB.

I appreciate those responses @Phillip Dearden, thank-you. I wasn't aware of those nuances between the UK and IOM tax law with specific legislation taxing certain capital profits as income, that's interesting. I can imagine they were passed because of a significant amount of capital was using those avenues without paying tax. But it's good to get confirmation that determining whether a transaction is a trade is independent of whether or not tax will apply. I also appreciate you sharing your impression of the likelihood of virtual currency transactions being tax liable, it's good to hear a second perspective as I'm not at all experienced in this area so I don't put too much weight on my own judgement.

I see. I fully agree with you on point 1. I was trying to go a step further and figure out the likelihood of trmpton and others on this forum are liable for income tax, instead of just keeping it at 'it depends on the circumstances'. As part of this I shared some government guidance and I thought you were dismissing its validity with your own understanding of the law. My apologies if that wasn't the case. With regards to point 2, I really don't believe that CGT liability affects the assessment of whether or not an activity qualifies as a trade. My understanding is that if an activity is a trade, it is taxed as income. If not, it may still be taxed on the rules put forward in capital gains tax legislation. Given that this legislation doesn't exist on the isle of man, and the assessment of whether or not an activity qualifies as a trade is likely to be the same in both countries, the fact that CGT doesn't exist on the IOM shouldn't affect the applicability of the UK case law. It isn't at the discretion of the tax authority to decide that given HMRC would have still have been able to collect some revenue from CGT it would be only fair for the IOM to classify something as a trade that otherwise wouldn't have. However, I'm not well versed with the intricacies of how CGT is applied so I could very well be wrong about this. If you know of an example where CGT has been payable instead of income tax despite a determination of a trade then this would prove me wrong. Either way, I hope this discussion will at least have been helpful to some on the iom to make a more informed decision about their tax liabilities regarding buying and selling shares and cryptos, and a quick email to the income tax department for clarification probably can't harm.

To clarify, I'm not arguing that some circumstances bitcoin activities could be taxed as income. There are many ways in which bitcoin could be involved in a trade - in that very document they talk about mining and the like. The existence of those bold underlined italic words just don't really do much to counter the case law, as well as the other guidance that suggests unless in the case of exceptional circumstances, individuals buying and selling shares does not count as a trade. So just to be sure, you are saying that the existence of CGT changes the determination of whether some activity qualifies as a trade or not?

In the UK profit from a trade is taxable as income not CGT. Are you saying that if something doesn't qualify as a trade in the UK (but qualifies for CGT) it might actually still qualify as a trade in the IOM because CGT doesn't exist on the IOM? That doesn't seem right. Why should the existence of another tax change the determination on whether something qualifies as a trade or not?

I believe investments are solely with the intention to make a profit and, on the isle of man, are not taxed as income. https://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/technical-activities/technical-resources-search/2011/august/badges-of-trade.html https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim56840 http://www1.lexisnexis.co.uk/taxtutor/public/business/2a_business_tax/2a10-01(F).pdf https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/taxation-profits-cryptocurrencies-18102017 So I think it seems unlikely that trmpton buying and selling cumrocket will be classified as a trade, given the case law Salt v Chamberlain and A Ali v HMRC. Ofc IANAL, speak to a tax solicitor if this actually concerns you. Or just extrapolate from cucumbers it's pretty simple really, no ambiguity at all.

I'm with you on that. (although I think you might have meant to write 'taxable' when referring to trading transactions). I was mainly taking issue to John's claim that the criteria for income tax is 'intention to make profit' which doesn't seem right. (it's more to do with what qualifies as a trade.) Of course. The question was not whether the guidance trumps law, but whether John W's extrapolation is more likely to be closer to the law than published guidance by government. While there definitely may be cases where government guidance conflicts with law, I assume they try very hard not to publish guidance that is misinformed. So unless it is clearly in breach of law wouldn't you agree that in the situation where we are unsure of the tax liabilities referring to published guidance is a reasonable thing to do? Certainly it is not foolproof and if large amounts of money are involved speaking to a tax lawyer would be preferable of course, but better than nothing?

Respectfully, what have I said that makes you so sure about this? You've repeated this twice now so I assume I came across incorrectly somewhere. So I take it your extrapolation from the tax law of flipping houses trumps a document published by government? We're trying to determine whether trmpton buying and selling cumrocket coin a couple of times a day is liable for income tax, and it's clear his sole motivation for doing so is profit. According to this guidance from Jersey (IOM might rule differently) it looks like he probably won't be liable given the criteria laid out in that document. Of course, this would have to be confirmed, we can't be sure. But I'm more convinced of that than the simple 'intent to profit' being the determinant of whether something is liable for income tax across the board. Almost all investments in equities and cryptos are with the intent to profit. Are you really saying that they all should be liable for income tax?

Aren't all investments with the intent to make a profit? Are you saying that the Jersey guidance isn't relevant here? When it says, "If you are just buying and selling for yourself with your own money it is unlikely that you are trading.", I'm pretty sure they're referring to the word trade in regards to whether the profit is liable for income tax or not (and not the financial "trader" meaning of the word)

I did try to look this up a while back for selling stocks but I couldn't find any information related to the isle of man. I'm assuming cryptocurrencies would fall under the same rules (disregarding the dividend component which is taxed separately to capital gains anyway) However Jersey do have some quite clear guidance on this, do you think it's likely that the IOM would rule similarly? https://www.gov.je/TaxesMoney/IncomeTax/BusinessesSelfEmployed/Pages/AmITrading.aspx#anchor-3 If so, I don't think trmpton buying CUMROCKET and selling it a couple of hours later would count as taxable income, even if he was doing it multiple times a day successfully, and solely with the intent of turning a profit. It does seem far closer to gambling than anything else.

The ultimate honeypot! Designed by GCHQ to bankrupt all the criminals in the world in one fell swoop