Change in UK gambling law may hit company tax bills: proposed change in the way Britain licenses gambling operators which are based abroad, may pave the way for the government to tax offshore gaming firms

Change in UK gambling law may hit company tax bills: proposed change in the way Britain licenses gambling operators which are based abroad, may pave the way for the government to tax offshore gaming firms

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport unveiled plans on Thursday to regulate remote gambling at the point of consumption, not supply, which they said would help protect UK gamblers.

"The current system for regulating remote gambling doesn't work. Overseas operators get an unfair advantage over UK-based companies, and British consumers who gamble online may have little or no protection depending on where the operator they deal with happens to be based," said the minister responsible for gambling policy, John Penrose.

Analysts say the proposals, which will insist that all gaming operators selling into the UK obtain a licence from the Gambling Commission, may pave the way for changes in taxation that could hit the firms.

"People see this as a precursor to taxation on the remote gaming companies," said Nick Batram of analysts Peel Hunt.

"They're creating a legislative structure that makes it easier for the HMRC (tax department) to introduce a tax."

Many betting firms operate from offshore tax havens, including Betfair , the world's largest betting exchange. It followed Ladbrokes and William Hill by moving part of its business to Gibraltar in March .

The Gibraltar tax rate is 1 percent compared with 15 percent in Britain.

Betfair's shares dropped as much as 4 percent on Thursday, while William Hill fell 3.9 percent and Ladbrokes dipped 1.4 percent.

With any new tax laws likely to be at least two years away, analysts saw the impact as longer term rather than immediate.

James Hollis at Evolution said a 15 percent tax rate would translate to a hit of up to 30 million pounds ($48 million) per year to William Hill and Ladbrokes, "representing a clear medium-term disruption". Read More

Another sad day for rule of law in Malawi: President Bingu wa Mutharika has once again violated the very Republican Constitution he twice swore to defend and protect

Another sad day for rule of law in Malawi: President Bingu wa Mutharika has once again violated the very Republican Constitution he twice swore to defend and protect

With the stroke of a pen, the President has also undermined the Judiciary in ways that create a deficit of trust and an erosion of confidence in the country’s judicial system. It is scary. It also takes us more than 15 years backwards.

Mutharika has assented to the Injunctions Bill fully knowing that the courts granted civic groups an injunction stopping further processing of the controversial legislation that cripples individual freedoms and robs citizens of their right to justice.

It is also disheartening to see the whole technical head of the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, solicitor general and secretary for Justice Anthony Kamanga claiming that “I am not aware, the Ministry of Justice is not aware and government is not aware of an injunction restraining the President from assenting to that bill or any bill.”

The PS should be the first to know that the injunction prevented the bill from being further processed after it passed in Parliament. That, according to our rudimentary understanding of the law, simply meant that any steps towards presidential assent would be deemed unlawful.

This is another sad day in the history of democratic Malawi. We are particularly alarmed that the President can walk all over the courts and throw away the rule of law with such abandon.

The desperation with which the Mutharika administration has pushed this bill makes us wonder about the real motives of introducing and then literally shoving this “bad law”—as chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament Henry Phoya said in his passionate and statesman argument against it—down the throat of Malawians.

The President’s decision has confirmed one fact. The arrogance of some government institutions such as the University of Malawi Council and the Ministry of Finance, which have on separate occasions been ignoring court rulings and orders, come at the behest of the President. Read More

Strike Down the Anti-Boycott Law: All boycotts are abhorrent and are usually supported by the most extreme elements in democratic societies

Strike Down the Anti-Boycott Law: All boycotts are abhorrent and are usually supported by the most extreme elements in democratic societies

The law will empower Israeli individuals, institutions or businesses targeted by boycotts initiated by fellow Israelis to seek compensation in court for damages resulting not only from boycott but even from calls to boycott.

This is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a monkey nut. Even Mort Klein of the Zionist Organisation of America thinks this is folly. "Nobody was more appalled by the boycott of Ariel theatre than me, but to make it illegal? I don't think so," he said. Similar sentiments have been expressed by NGO Monitor and the Anti-Defamation League, neither known for their love of the nihilistic Left.

Israel has a democratic tradition of which it can be proud and which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right to boast about before the US Congress in May. In democracies, people have every right to band together and to use buying power to further political or any other objectives.

Legislation that infringes freedom of expression will not defeat boycott initiatives. If the boycott is wrong, let its supporters be found out to be wrong in the free market of ideas. But don't stifle criticism through legislation, only authoritarian regimes resort to that.

The only people benefiting from this folly are those who claim that Israel isn't a democracy after all. Read More

Western law prof set to head international sports tribunal

Western law prof set to head international sports tribunal

The professor of business and sports law at the University of Western Ontario, has previously arbitrated at both the Winter and Summer Olympics. He was appointed president of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal on July 1.

The tribunal, established by the Geneva-based world basketball governing body FIBA in 2006, provides dispute resolution services for players, agents and clubs through arbitration.

McLaren, who says the number of cases the tribunal handles are expected to double over the next two years, praises it as one of the few dispute resolution systems in the world that handles almost all of its cases on a real-time basis online.

“It’s a model of how to provide access to justice and deliver fast and well-reasoned disputes,” said McLaren, who has been on faculty at UWO’s law school since 1972 and was Associate Dean from 1979-82. Read More