Friday, February 22, 2013
Gambling Law Expert Says AG Has No Case Against Gaming | WKRG
Gambling Law Expert Says AG Has No Case Against Gaming | WKRG
Gambling Law Expert Says AG Has No Case Against Gaming
By: | WKRG
Published: February 21, 2013
Published: February 21, 2013
»
ATMORE, Alabama --
When asked about the hundreds of people that could lose their jobs if the attorney general's lawsuit against Indian gaming is successful the governor responded.
“I do feel sorry for anyone who loses their job,” said Robert Bentley this week. Despite the threat of losing hundreds of jobs statewide of the AG’s lawsuit is successful Bentley thinks the state has some legal ground here.
“These may not be legitimate tribes and so there are real questions true questions that need to be answered,” says Bentley. That question was answered when the federal government recognized the Poarch Bank of Creek Indians as a tribe in 1984. Many tribes fight for years for recognition--nothing short of the federal government can change that.
“It doesn't matter if they have no land and one person, it's not up to the state to decide who is a real Indian or tribe,” says Gambling Expert Professor I. Nelson Rose. He is an author and expert on gambling law. I asked him if the AG has a case against casinos like Wind Creek.
“Ha ha ha no,” chuckled Rose. “I don't think they have a case, I think the attorney general will be lucky not to get hit by sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.” The governor claims they have a case because the tribe can't do more than the state allows with regards to bingo. Professor Rose says that's only partially true. If the state outlawed bingo completely then the tribe couldn't have their machines.
Since Alabama allows bingo in some forms the tribe is allowed to do it too and is free to use machines even though the state prohibits that.
Gambling Licensing Advice | Gambling, Licensing and Life
Gambling Licensing Advice | Gambling, Licensing and Life
The missing $20 trillion
How to stop companies and people dodging tax, in Delaware as well as Grand Cayman
CIVILISATION works only if those who enjoy its benefits are also prepared to pay their share of the costs. People and companies that avoid tax are therefore unpopular at the best of times, so it is not surprising that when governments and individuals everywhere are scrimping to pay their bills, attacks are mounting on tax havens and those that use them.
In Europe the anger has focused on big firms. Amazon and Starbucks have faced consumer boycotts for using clever accounting tricks to book profits in tax havens whilereducing their bills in the countries where they do business. David Cameron has put tackling corporate tax-avoidance at the top of the G8 agenda. America has taken aim at tax-dodging individuals and the banks that help them. Congress has passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which forces foreign financial firms to disclose their American clients. Any whiff of offshore funds has become a political liability. During last year’s presidential campaign Mitt Romney was excoriated by Democrats for his holdings in the Cayman Islands. Now Jack Lew, Barack Obama’s nominee for treasury secretary, is under fire for once having an interest in a Cayman fund.
Getting rich people to pay their dues is an admirable ambition, but this attack is both hypocritical and misguided. It may be good populist politics, but leaders who want to make their countries work better should focus instead on cleaning up their own back yards and reforming their tax systems.
Dodgy of Delaware
The archetypal tax haven may be a palm-fringed island, but as our special report this week makes clear, there is nothing small about offshore finance. If you define a tax haven as a place that tries to attract non-resident funds by offering light regulation, low (or zero) taxation and secrecy, then the world has 50-60 such havens. These serve as domiciles for more than 2m companies and thousands of banks, funds and insurers. Nobody really knows how much money is stashed away: estimates vary from way below to way above $20 trillion.
Not all these havens are in sunny climes; indeed not all are technically offshore. Mr Obama likes to cite Ugland House, a building in the Cayman Islands that is officially home to 18,000 companies, as the epitome of a rigged system. But Ugland House is not a patch on Delaware (population 917,092), which is home to 945,000 companies, many of which are dodgy shells. Miami is a massive offshore banking centre, offering depositors from emerging markets the sort of protection from prying eyes that their home countries can no longer get away with. The City of London, which pioneered offshore currency trading in the 1950s, still specialises in helping non-residents get around the rules. British shell companies and limited-liability partnerships regularly crop up in criminal cases. London is no better than the Cayman Islands when it comes to controls against money laundering. Other European Union countries are global hubs for a different sort of tax avoidance: companies divert profits to brass-plate subsidiaries in low-tax Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands.
Reform should thus focus on rich-world financial centres as well as Caribbean islands, and should distinguish between illegal activities (laundering and outright tax evasion) and legal ones (fancy accounting to avoid tax). The best weapon against illegal activities is transparency, which boils down to collecting more information and sharing it better. Thanks in large part to America’s FATCA, small offshore centres are handing over more data to their clients’ home countries—while America remains shamefully reluctant to share information with the Latin American countries whose citizens hold deposits in Miami. That must change. Everyone could do more to crack down on the use of nominee shareholders and directors to hide the provenance of money. And they should make sure that information about the true “beneficial” owners of companies is collected, kept up-to-date and made more readily available to investigators in cases of suspected wrongdoing. There are costs to openness, but they are outweighed by the benefits of shining light on the shady corners of finance.
Want more tax? Lower the tax rate
Transparency will also help curb the more aggressive forms of corporate tax avoidance. As Starbucks’s experience has shown, companies that shift money around to minimise their tax bills endanger their reputations. The more information consumers have about such dodges, the better.
Moral pressure is not the whole answer, though: consumers get bored with campaigns, and governments should not bash companies for trying to reduce their tax bills, if they do so legally. In the end, tax systems must be reformed. Governments need to make it harder for companies to use internal (“transfer”) pricing to avoid tax. Companies should be made to book activity where it actually takes place. Several federal economies, including America, already prevent companies from exploiting the differences between states’ rules. An international agreement along those lines is needed.
Governments also need to lower corporate tax rates. Tapping companies is inefficient: firms pass the burden on to others. Better to tax directly those who ultimately pay—whether owners of capital, workers or consumers. Nor do corporate taxes raise much money: barely more than 2% of GDP (8.5% of tax revenue) in America and 2.7% in Britain. Abolishing corporate tax would create its own problems, as it would encourage rich people to turn themselves into companies. But a lower rate on a broader base, combined with vigilance by the tax authorities, would be more efficient and would probably raise more revenue: America, whose companies face one of the rich world’s highest corporate-tax rates on their worldwide income, also has some of the most energetic tax-avoiders.
These reforms would not be easy. Governments that try to lower corporate tax rates will be accused of caving in to blackmailing capitalists. Financial centres and incorporation hubs, from the City of London to Delaware, will fight any attempt to tighten their rules. But if politicians really want to tax the missing $20 trillion, that’s where they should start.
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
The missing $20 trillion
How to stop companies and people dodging tax, in Delaware as well as Grand Cayman
CIVILISATION works only if those who enjoy its benefits are also prepared to pay their share of the costs. People and companies that avoid tax are therefore unpopular at the best of times, so it is not surprising that when governments and individuals everywhere are scrimping to pay their bills, attacks are mounting on tax havens and those that use them.
In Europe the anger has focused on big firms. Amazon and Starbucks have faced consumer boycotts for using clever accounting tricks to book profits in tax havens whilereducing their bills in the countries where they do business. David Cameron has put tackling corporate tax-avoidance at the top of the G8 agenda. America has taken aim at tax-dodging individuals and the banks that help them. Congress has passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which forces foreign financial firms to disclose their American clients. Any whiff of offshore funds has become a political liability. During last year’s presidential campaign Mitt Romney was excoriated by Democrats for his holdings in the Cayman Islands. Now Jack Lew, Barack Obama’s nominee for treasury secretary, is under fire for once having an interest in a Cayman fund.
Getting rich people to pay their dues is an admirable ambition, but this attack is both hypocritical and misguided. It may be good populist politics, but leaders who want to make their countries work better should focus instead on cleaning up their own back yards and reforming their tax systems.
Dodgy of Delaware
The archetypal tax haven may be a palm-fringed island, but as our special report this week makes clear, there is nothing small about offshore finance. If you define a tax haven as a place that tries to attract non-resident funds by offering light regulation, low (or zero) taxation and secrecy, then the world has 50-60 such havens. These serve as domiciles for more than 2m companies and thousands of banks, funds and insurers. Nobody really knows how much money is stashed away: estimates vary from way below to way above $20 trillion.
Not all these havens are in sunny climes; indeed not all are technically offshore. Mr Obama likes to cite Ugland House, a building in the Cayman Islands that is officially home to 18,000 companies, as the epitome of a rigged system. But Ugland House is not a patch on Delaware (population 917,092), which is home to 945,000 companies, many of which are dodgy shells. Miami is a massive offshore banking centre, offering depositors from emerging markets the sort of protection from prying eyes that their home countries can no longer get away with. The City of London, which pioneered offshore currency trading in the 1950s, still specialises in helping non-residents get around the rules. British shell companies and limited-liability partnerships regularly crop up in criminal cases. London is no better than the Cayman Islands when it comes to controls against money laundering. Other European Union countries are global hubs for a different sort of tax avoidance: companies divert profits to brass-plate subsidiaries in low-tax Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands.
Reform should thus focus on rich-world financial centres as well as Caribbean islands, and should distinguish between illegal activities (laundering and outright tax evasion) and legal ones (fancy accounting to avoid tax). The best weapon against illegal activities is transparency, which boils down to collecting more information and sharing it better. Thanks in large part to America’s FATCA, small offshore centres are handing over more data to their clients’ home countries—while America remains shamefully reluctant to share information with the Latin American countries whose citizens hold deposits in Miami. That must change. Everyone could do more to crack down on the use of nominee shareholders and directors to hide the provenance of money. And they should make sure that information about the true “beneficial” owners of companies is collected, kept up-to-date and made more readily available to investigators in cases of suspected wrongdoing. There are costs to openness, but they are outweighed by the benefits of shining light on the shady corners of finance.
Want more tax? Lower the tax rate
Transparency will also help curb the more aggressive forms of corporate tax avoidance. As Starbucks’s experience has shown, companies that shift money around to minimise their tax bills endanger their reputations. The more information consumers have about such dodges, the better.
Moral pressure is not the whole answer, though: consumers get bored with campaigns, and governments should not bash companies for trying to reduce their tax bills, if they do so legally. In the end, tax systems must be reformed. Governments need to make it harder for companies to use internal (“transfer”) pricing to avoid tax. Companies should be made to book activity where it actually takes place. Several federal economies, including America, already prevent companies from exploiting the differences between states’ rules. An international agreement along those lines is needed.
Governments also need to lower corporate tax rates. Tapping companies is inefficient: firms pass the burden on to others. Better to tax directly those who ultimately pay—whether owners of capital, workers or consumers. Nor do corporate taxes raise much money: barely more than 2% of GDP (8.5% of tax revenue) in America and 2.7% in Britain. Abolishing corporate tax would create its own problems, as it would encourage rich people to turn themselves into companies. But a lower rate on a broader base, combined with vigilance by the tax authorities, would be more efficient and would probably raise more revenue: America, whose companies face one of the rich world’s highest corporate-tax rates on their worldwide income, also has some of the most energetic tax-avoiders.
These reforms would not be easy. Governments that try to lower corporate tax rates will be accused of caving in to blackmailing capitalists. Financial centres and incorporation hubs, from the City of London to Delaware, will fight any attempt to tighten their rules. But if politicians really want to tax the missing $20 trillion, that’s where they should start.
Is NYC's Resorts World Casino Taking Other Gambling Hot Spots' Business? - Yahoo! News
Is NYC's Resorts World Casino Taking Other Gambling Hot Spots' Business? - Yahoo! News
Is NYC's Resorts World Casino Taking Other Gambling Hot Spots' Business?
By Eric Holden | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Wed, Feb 20, 2013RELATED CONTENT
- New York City's Resorts World Casino …
To enjoy the full gambling experience, New York City residents no longer need to take expensive four-hour bus rides to hit the gambling strip in New Jersey's Atlantic City. Driving two and a half hours to Mohegan Sun in Uncasville, Connecticut, has also been nearly knocked out of the equation due to the surge in popularity of New York City's Resorts World Casino.
With over 5,000 slots and electronic table games, along with an inside bar/lounge that features a high-definition, 28-foot video screen and circular stage, Resorts World Casino is clearly a legitimate threat to Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun's incredible dominance of the East Coast gambling scene.
Business Is Booming
According to the Queens Gazette, gross gaming revenues for the first month of 2013 were close to $60 million.
Heading into 2013, Resorts World Casino had already shattered the record for gross slot gaming revenue and tax-generation in New York State in a 12-month span, with over $460 million in revenue raked in for the state, including over $290 million in funding for education.
Resorts World, which generated almost $700 million total in gross gaming revenue in 2012, was the "highest grossing slot revenue generator in the nation" last year, according to the Queens Gazette.
Located at Aqueduct Raceway, adjacent to JFK International Airport, and close to Citi Field, the casino is easily accessible by public transportation, and a new free shuttle bus from Jamaica Train Station that was introduced earlier this year makes getting there easier.
Should Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun be worried about losing revenues generated from would-be gamers coming from New York?
Not so fast.
Besides the perk of free adult beverages while gaming, Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun have another important factor that Resorts World lacks: a true "vacation" experience.
Free Drinks, Table Games, and Hotel Rooms
Atlantic City features over a dozen Las Vegas-style hotel casinos, including iconic gambling hot spots like Harrah's, Bally's, and the Trump Taj Mahal. Folks who gamble in Atlantic City can play slots and then easily spend the night in one of the area's many hotels.
As for Mohegan Sun, there's over 1,200 available hotel rooms, along with a 12,000-seat arena that plays host to combat sports events and WNBA games. At Mohegan Sun, customers can also play poker and blackjack, both of which are not currently offered at Resorts World Casino.
Some New Yorkers think the lack of poker and blackjack tables alone will keep many away from Resorts World. "People will be curious at first, but real gamblers play table games," said 29-year-old Greenlawn, New York, resident Samantha Lowry-O'Keefe, an agent at Huntington's Nationwide Insurance office. "So maybe Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun will lose a few older customers who love penny machines, but not the real gamblers who enjoy poker, blackjack, and other table games."
According to a Las Vegas Review-Journal report, Genting -- the Malaysian group that runs Resorts World -- wants to attach three hotels with 3,000 rooms to the casino, which would provide guests with the opportunity to spend the night. That's an option they don't currently have, and it's a good way to cut deeper into Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun's revenues.
"I think Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun have become more famous for the other things they offer, other than just the casino," said Rego Park, New York, resident Liz Degen. "It's about the overall experience. Who knows? Maybe a smaller-scale casino will help distribute the weight evenly. Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun will continue to cater to people and groups that want to get away for the weekend, drink, see a show, gamble, and stay at least one night."
Ladbrokes gaining ground in online gambling | Reuters
Ladbrokes gaining ground in online gambling | Reuters
Ladbrokes gaining ground in online gambling
LONDON |
(Reuters) - Ladbrokes, Britain's second-largest bookmaker, expects to see payback this year from a 50 million pound ($77 million investment in an onlinebusiness that had failed to keep pace with rivals.
While growing numbers of people are gambling via smartphones and tablet computers, Ladbrokes has been hit by delays upgrading its technology. It has lost ground to market leader William Hill in online and faced competition from smaller rivals.
A strong performance from traditional high street betting shops helped Ladbrokes report an 8 percent rise in operating profit to 206 million pounds for 2012, compared with a forecast for 204 million.
Profit from its digital division fell 39 percent to 32 million pounds last year as it spent on marketing and technology, Ladbrokes said on Thursday.
The company also said it was now seeing evidence it was making up for lost time in online, and expected new sports betting and mobile platforms to be launched in the first half of 2013. "We are starting to see some moderately encouraging signs of payback," chief executive Richard Glynn told Reuters.
Growth in digital revenues and earnings should be stronger in the second half of 2013, he said.
HIGH STREET SPENDING
Ladbrokes has benefited from inconsistent performances by the likes of English Premier League soccer clubs Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City, who all attract heavy bets and have disappointed fans and punters alike this season.
Revenues in the first six weeks of 2013 rose 7.2 percent in what Ladbrokes said was a promising start to the year.
The company operates more than 2,000 high street shops in Britain and plans to open another 100 this year, adopting a dual retail and online strategy that William Hill has also been pursuing.
The company agreed last month to buy online betting exchange Betdaq for 30 million euros as part of its online expansion.
Although the deal was small, investors welcomed the swift agreement after Ladbrokes had failed in talks with other targets in the sector.
Ladbrokes shares have risen almost 50 percent over the past six months on hopes it can finally come up with a compelling online strategy. They were down 1.9 percent on the day at 226.6 pence at 1120 GMT.
($1 = 0.6535 pound = 0.7479 euro)
(Reporting by Keith Weir; Editing by Dan Lalor)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)