tax return and share trading, page-13

jmstylz

compare your situation to the summary provided by the court that said the person was a trader:

(a) The nature of the activities has been described previously in these Reasons and their purpose of profit-making cannot be doubted.

(b) The magnitude was reasonably substantial in relation to the Applicant; it was complex in that it required skill expertise and experience; it seems clear that in order to derive a profit from arbitrage activities of this nature, and taking into account the dealing costs involved, precise timing is important.

(c) Trading was regular, routine and systematic, at least whilst the enterprise lasted; it lasted for a little under a month and then ceased for a good and valid reason, namely that insufficient profit was derived.

(d) The operation was businesslike and required sophistication.

(e) There was indeed a pattern of trading even though there was a limited number of trades.

(f) In relation to the Applicant the amount of capital involved was substantial especially when the risk factors are taken into account.

Then dealing with the tests specifically laid down for share traders:

(a) There was a degree of repetition.

(b) The turnover was substantial in relation to the Applicant.

(c) The Applicant retained brokers notes which were sufficient accounting records.

(d) The Applicant used the offices of his employer and needed no other.

(e) The Applicant has accounted in a manner considered adequate.

(f) The only aspect which appears to be against the Applicant is the fact that he was at the relevant time in the full-time employ of the AMP Society. It was not clear to me just how he managed to combine fulfilment of his obligations to his employer while regularly involved in numerous telephone conversations (sometimes lengthy) with his broker. However, I have accepted that his evidence was truthful and this being so it seems clear that he spent very considerable periods of time in and in relation to his arbitrage activities.

My overall impression then is that the Applicant was in business, notwithstanding that the business extended for a short time only; the fact that the time period involved was short may be relevant, but cannot of itself be determinative.