Two for the Mones...

These two guys kept it so RAL that they are a case study for the Income Tax Act in a University Law class... "The Facts" - from the original source, Canadian Legal Information Institute



[8] The appellants are two unmarried young men in their thirties or thereabouts. They graduated from high school but have no formal training in anything except for some computer courses in high school. Before their substantial lottery winnings they worked in their father’s window washing business.

[9] Brian – and perhaps Terry [Leblanc], the evidence is not clear – started playing sports lottery games prior to 1992 and it appears won a substantial amount of money either prior to 1996 or early in 1996 with which they embarked upon the involvement in betting that is the subject of these appeals.

[10] In the years 1996 through 1999 they plunged massively and with a rash abandon (love this description) into sports lotteries such as Point Spread or Over/Under. The three lottery games most commonly played by the appellants were Pro‑Line, Point Spread and Over/Under.



[11] The appellants rented a house in Aylmer so that they could play both the Ontario and Quebec lotteries. They led unusual (see:RAL) lives. They spent their time playing lottery games, watching sports on television, playing ping pong and golf, sitting around the house drinking beer and crushing Za. Despite their winnings, they lived cheaply and spent very little on material goods. Their winnings were all ploughed back into the lottery games. (Who has time to buy bling and cars and pick up honey's when you have to buy 3 hundo sport selects a day and when you're trying to become the world's richest gambling-cross-border-brother duo? And why weren't they hustling ping-pong games in Chinatown?)



Additionally they enjoyed hustling snooker (what is he a moustache'd 40 year old?): "With this background, I have no difficulty in concluding that the Appellant carried on a business of playing pool for profit. He had a system and a reasonable expectation of profit. It was his principal source of income during the years in question. He approached his business in a professional manner:"

a) He carefully managed the risks.
b) He was a skilled player.
c) He played Monday through to Friday each week.
d) He spent his afternoons playing snooker to perfect his skills. (RAL)
e) He played inebriated opponents after 11:00 p.m. to minimize his risk. (Cunty but smart).
f) He won most of the time earning, approximately $200 daily.
g) He drank alcoholic beverages only on weekends when not playing pool to give him a sober advantage over his inebriated opponents. (but if this guy is as cool as we figure, he didn't go half-assed at drinking on the weekend either).
h) He was calculating and disciplined.
i) It was his primary source of income and he relied on this steady income. (probably better than what you're procrastinating doing right now, no?)

Being RAL consists of partaking in a number of things and high stakes gambling is certianly one of them, playing the 5 buck Blackjack table is nonRAL, it puts you at risk financially and sometimes physically, it can and usually does hurt those around you and the rush is comparable to Auto Erotic Asphyxiation (You know where you have the belt around your neck in an aggressive self pleasure session...don't act like you didn't know) or docking. So for these two guys doing nothing, literally nothing but gambling or practicing to become better at gambling they must be considered RAL.

***The brilliant lawyer-to-be who suggested this case (he goes by J-Baller, go figure) wanted to mention that "they weren't the ones hustling snooker, that part of the case was a lengthy quote from another (probably equally awesome) case..." but we don't give a rip, we like our version better- read the case if you want the real story.