08 Jun 2004 01:48:29
Weather Bookie
$45,000 prize and still an amateur

My 18 handicap friend toe-hooked a five wood shot that rolled between the
bunkers and in the hole to win a $45,000 Mercedes Benz.

Over beers later, I told him that he was the "world's worst professional
golfer" and explained how his amateur status was now gone.

Later, I looked it up in the rules of golf and found that there is an
exception for hole-in-one prizes. Although the wording is difficult to
understand, I believe that the rules treat a hole-in-one essentially as luck
and exempt the prize from amateur rules.

Thus, you can win the car and still be an amateur.

Is this correct ? Opinions ?

Bookie





08 Jun 2004 01:59:22
John Yoshizawa
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

I don't know about that. The people that won the Raniers against Tiger
Woods all lost their amateur status. I guess it only matters though if you
play in amateur tournies. Which I believe one of the Ranier winners did do
unfortunately.

"Weather Bookie" <Bookie@BS.edu > wrote in message
news:NV8xc.2311$Y3.974@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> My 18 handicap friend toe-hooked a five wood shot that rolled between the
> bunkers and in the hole to win a $45,000 Mercedes Benz.
>
> Over beers later, I told him that he was the "world's worst professional
> golfer" and explained how his amateur status was now gone.
>
> Later, I looked it up in the rules of golf and found that there is an
> exception for hole-in-one prizes. Although the wording is difficult to
> understand, I believe that the rules treat a hole-in-one essentially as
luck
> and exempt the prize from amateur rules.
>
> Thus, you can win the car and still be an amateur.
>
> Is this correct ? Opinions ?
>
> Bookie
>
>
>




07 Jun 2004 20:08:27
Roald Oines
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

Weather Bookie (Bookie@BS.edu) wrote:
: My 18 handicap friend toe-hooked a five wood shot that rolled between
: the bunkers and in the hole to win a $45,000 Mercedes Benz.
:
: Over beers later, I told him that he was the "world's worst
: professional golfer" and explained how his amateur status was now
: gone.
:
: Later, I looked it up in the rules of golf and found that there is an
: exception for hole-in-one prizes. Although the wording is difficult
: to understand, I believe that the rules treat a hole-in-one
: essentially as luck and exempt the prize from amateur rules.
:
: Thus, you can win the car and still be an amateur.
:
: Is this correct ? Opinions ?
:
: Bookie

USGA rules, right? The way I read it, the hole-in-one prize limit is the
same as a prize in any one tournament, exhibition, etc. ($750 retail
value, non-cash prize), but one can win both the tournament's prize
*and* the hole-in-one prize in the same competition and retain amateur
status.
--
http://rec-sport-golf.com/?rc=oinesroald
Please remove the under_scores if sending me mail.



07 Jun 2004 21:13:02
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

if you win the car, one thing for sure is, you have wheels.:--)

m h o
=A0v =83e

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"Attitude Is Everything"



08 Jun 2004 02:40:18
Weather Bookie
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


"John Yoshizawa" <jyosh@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:_39xc.6210$uX2.5106@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I don't know about that. The people that won the Raniers against Tiger
> Woods all lost their amateur status. I guess it only matters though if
you
> play in amateur tournies. Which I believe one of the Ranier winners did
do
> unfortunately.


The rule book specifically says "hole in one". The Tiger thing was not for
making hole in ones.





08 Jun 2004 03:01:14
Kenny Stultz
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

In article <NV8xc.2311$Y3.974@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net >, Bookie@BS.edu
says...
>
>My 18 handicap friend toe-hooked a five wood shot that rolled between the
>bunkers and in the hole to win a $45,000 Mercedes Benz.
>
>Over beers later, I told him that he was the "world's worst professional
>golfer" and explained how his amateur status was now gone.
>
>Later, I looked it up in the rules of golf and found that there is an
>exception for hole-in-one prizes. Although the wording is difficult to
>understand, I believe that the rules treat a hole-in-one essentially as luck
>and exempt the prize from amateur rules.
>
>Thus, you can win the car and still be an amateur.
>
>Is this correct ? Opinions ?
>
>Bookie
>
>
>

That's not the way I read the exception. The exception is that if you win a
hole in one prize that's less that $750, you can still win $750 worth of other
stuff in the same tournament.

If, however, your hole in one prize is worth more than $750, you're a pro.

From Rule 3-2:

"The limit prescribed in Rule 3-2a applies to a prize for a hole-in-one.
However, such a prize may be accepted in addition to any other prize won in the
same competition. "

Kenny


--
Kenny Stultz - Troll and SPAM intolerant
RSG Rollcall: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=stultzk
"Golf is the only sport where a precise knowledge of the Rules can
earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship"



08 Jun 2004 10:42:39
John Laird
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

On 8 Jun 2004 03:01:14 GMT, kstultz@comcast.net (Kenny Stultz) wrote:

>That's not the way I read the exception. The exception is that if you win a
>hole in one prize that's less that $750, you can still win $750 worth of other
>stuff in the same tournament.
>
>If, however, your hole in one prize is worth more than $750, you're a pro.
>
>From Rule 3-2:
>
>"The limit prescribed in Rule 3-2a applies to a prize for a hole-in-one.
>However, such a prize may be accepted in addition to any other prize won in the
>same competition. "

Your reading is the same as mine (and I have cross-checked the online USGA
rules against my R&A book, the words are slightly different but the meaning
is identical). There was a well-documented case here a few years back when
a journalist won a valuable car ($40K or so) as a hole-in-one prize. He
decided to accept the car and effectively challenge the R&A to exercise
their rights. In the end, he only lost his status for a year or so. Up to
then, there was at least an expectaction if not ample evidence that the
authorities would make it a long drawn-out process. They have effectively
conceded that holes-in-one are the result of small amounts of skill(*)
(possessed by many many golfers) and large amounts of luck, and that no-one
should have their amateur status removed for ridiculous lengths of time as a
result. Give me the choice between a Mercedes convertible and the chance to
play in half a dozen club comps and it's not a choice at all...

(*) Having said that, I believe the two we witnessed at Augusta this year in
the final round on the same hole within minutes were at least partly
attributable to a pin position which was gathering balls landing in a
reasonable spread that on flatter greens would have finished some distance
apart.

--
Just a possum on the information superhighway...

Mail john rather than nospam...


08 Jun 2004 22:50:46
Kevin D. Timm
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

fiveiron@webtv.net wrote:
>
> if you win the car, one thing for sure is, you have wheels.:--)
>
> m h o
> v e
>
> "Attitude Is Everything"

Just because I'm obstinate, I'll disagree. Let me know if you can
figure out why.

KT


09 Jun 2004 02:15:03
Joe Cartpath
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


"Kevin D. Timm" <kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:40C642CA.F6CB3BDC@comcast.net...
> fiveiron@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > if you win the car, one thing for sure is, you have wheels.:--)
> >
> > m h o
> > v fe
> >
> > "Attitude Is Everything"
>
> Just because I'm obstinate, I'll disagree. Let me know if you can
> figure out why.
>
> KT

One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year to pay
taxes on!

I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game show, had
to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell behind in
the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I won't.....

-Joe Cartpath




09 Jun 2004 02:17:13
Joe Cartpath
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


> If, however, your hole in one prize is worth more than $750, you're a pro.
>
> From Rule 3-2:
>
> "The limit prescribed in Rule 3-2a applies to a prize for a hole-in-one.
> However, such a prize may be accepted in addition to any other prize won
in the
> same competition. "
>
> Kenny
>

Well, to be technical, not a "pro"....just no longer an amateur...

-Joe Cartpath




09 Jun 2004 02:22:55
Dave Clary
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:15:03 GMT, "Joe Cartpath" <nospam@dontbother.com > wrote:

>One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year to pay
>taxes on!
>
>I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game show, had
>to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell behind in
>the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I won't.....
>
>-Joe Cartpath
>
Yep, you won't hear Pat and Vanna explaining that part!! That's why it's better
to hear the announcer say "twenty-five THOOOUUUSSSSAAND dollars!"

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Golf Diary: http://davidclary.com/golfdiary.htm
RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd


09 Jun 2004 12:53:17
Colin Wilson
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

Dave Clary wrote:

>>One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year to pay
>>taxes on!
>>
>>I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game show, had
>>to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell behind in
>>the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I won't.....
>>
>>-Joe Cartpath

> Yep, you won't hear Pat and Vanna explaining that part!! That's why it's better
> to hear the announcer say "twenty-five THOOOUUUSSSSAAND dollars!"

In Australia, any such prize is not assessed as "income" for taxation
purposes. You have to *earn* income through an occupation.

A car won on a game show would only be assessed as income if your stated
occupation for tax purposes was "professional quiz and game show
contestant" (!), or in the case of a hole-in-one prize, "professional
golfer".

However, if you won a million bucks in the lottery, the Australian Tax
Office would classify any subsequent interest earnings, i.e. from
investing the money, as income.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
------------------------------------------------------------------



09 Jun 2004 02:58:10
Weather Bookie
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


"Colin Wilson" <publish@kyneton.net.au > wrote in message
news:2incd1FpcufkU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Dave Clary wrote:
>
> >>One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year to
pay
> >>taxes on!
> >>
> >>I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game show,
had
> >>to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell behind
in
> >>the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I won't.....
> >>
> >>-Joe Cartpath
>
> > Yep, you won't hear Pat and Vanna explaining that part!! That's why
it's better
> > to hear the announcer say "twenty-five THOOOUUUSSSSAAND dollars!"
>
> In Australia, any such prize is not assessed as "income" for taxation
> purposes. You have to *earn* income through an occupation.
>
> A car won on a game show would only be assessed as income if your stated
> occupation for tax purposes was "professional quiz and game show
> contestant" (!), or in the case of a hole-in-one prize, "professional
> golfer".
>
> However, if you won a million bucks in the lottery, the Australian Tax
> Office would classify any subsequent interest earnings, i.e. from
> investing the money, as income.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Colin Wilson
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc
> Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm moving down under !




08 Jun 2004 23:09:10
David Sneddon
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

Colin Wilson wrote:

> Dave Clary wrote:
>
>>> One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year
>>> to pay
>>> taxes on!
>>>
>>> I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game
>>> show, had
>>> to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell
>>> behind in
>>> the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I won't.....
>>>
>>> -Joe Cartpath
>
>
>> Yep, you won't hear Pat and Vanna explaining that part!! That's why
>> it's better
>> to hear the announcer say "twenty-five THOOOUUUSSSSAAND dollars!"
>
>
> In Australia, any such prize is not assessed as "income" for taxation
> purposes. You have to *earn* income through an occupation.
>
> A car won on a game show would only be assessed as income if your stated
> occupation for tax purposes was "professional quiz and game show
> contestant" (!), or in the case of a hole-in-one prize, "professional
> golfer".
>
> However, if you won a million bucks in the lottery, the Australian Tax
> Office would classify any subsequent interest earnings, i.e. from
> investing the money, as income.

Same in Canada.

We have a lot of US citizens drive over the border to play in the
Casino. They can bet and be paid out in US dollars and no tax is levied.

David
>


09 Jun 2004 12:58:58
Howard Brazee
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


On 8-Jun-2004, Colin Wilson <publish@kyneton.net.au > wrote:

> In Australia, any such prize is not assessed as "income" for taxation
> purposes. You have to *earn* income through an occupation.

Interesting. Some U.S. cities have earnings taxes, as opposed to income taxes
that the feds and most states have. The advantage of earnings taxes is that
suburbanites who work in the city pay it. The disadvantage is that there is a
lot of income that isn't earned - such as this.

So what you call income tax is what these cities call earnings tax.


09 Jun 2004 13:00:08
Howard Brazee
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


On 8-Jun-2004, David Sneddon <me@privacy.net > wrote:

> We have a lot of US citizens drive over the border to play in the
> Casino. They can bet and be paid out in US dollars and no tax is levied.

No tax is withheld - but that doesn't mean tax isn't owed back in the U.S.


09 Jun 2004 06:48:53
dsc
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

Dave Clary <dclary@stx.rr.com > wrote in message news:<41tcc0pafd3mhk13qh8gqln7srvs97thbr@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:15:03 GMT, "Joe Cartpath" <nospam@dontbother.com> wrote:
>
> >One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year to pay
> >taxes on!
> >
> >I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game show, had
> >to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell behind in
> >the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I won't.....
> >
> >-Joe Cartpath
> >
> Yep, you won't hear Pat and Vanna explaining that part!! That's why it's better
> to hear the announcer say "twenty-five THOOOUUUSSSSAAND dollars!"

It's no different really. The lady should have immediatly sold the
car, paid off the loan and had close to 1/2 the value in cash left
over... you can give anybody anything... but you can't keep them from
being stupid.


09 Jun 2004 06:51:15
dsc
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

"Joe Cartpath" <nospam@dontbother.com > wrote in message news:<Jquxc.66503$DG4.63077@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> > If, however, your hole in one prize is worth more than $750, you're a pro.
> >
> > From Rule 3-2:
> >
> > "The limit prescribed in Rule 3-2a applies to a prize for a hole-in-one.
> > However, such a prize may be accepted in addition to any other prize won
> in the
> > same competition. "
> >
> > Kenny
> >
>
> Well, to be technical, not a "pro"....just no longer an amateur...
>
> -Joe Cartpath

Exactly...


09 Jun 2004 13:54:16
gman99
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

"Joe Cartpath" <nospam@dontbother.com > wrote:
> "Kevin D. Timm" <kevindtimm@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:40C642CA.F6CB3BDC@comcast.net...
> > fiveiron@webtv.net wrote:
> > >
> > > if you win the car, one thing for sure is, you have wheels.:--)
> > >
> > > m h o
> > > v fe
> > >
> > > "Attitude Is Everything"
> >
> > Just because I'm obstinate, I'll disagree. Let me know if you can
> > figure out why.
> >
> > KT
>
> One thing for sure is, you have $45,000 additional income this year to
> pay taxes on!
>
> I could tell you a story about a lady who won a Jeep on a TV game show,
> had to use the Jeep for collateral on a loan to pay her taxes, fell
> behind in the payments and said Jeep was repossessed and sold. But I
> won't.....
>
Not up here...no taxes on lottery or other prize winnings.....you win the
lottery for 10 million...you get a check for 10 million...no annuities...no
taxes.


09 Jun 2004 15:02:44
John Laird
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:53:17 +1000, Colin Wilson <publish@kyneton.net.au >
wrote:

>In Australia, any such prize is not assessed as "income" for taxation
>purposes. You have to *earn* income through an occupation.
>
>A car won on a game show would only be assessed as income if your stated
>occupation for tax purposes was "professional quiz and game show
>contestant" (!), or in the case of a hole-in-one prize, "professional
>golfer".
>
>However, if you won a million bucks in the lottery, the Australian Tax
>Office would classify any subsequent interest earnings, i.e. from
>investing the money, as income.

The situation is much the same in the UK. The Revenue do however use the
expression "income for tax purposes" which includes "earned income" and
various flavours of "unearned income". That said, there is a definite
tax-free status on the likes of National Lottery winnings and Premium Bond
prizes, and a general presumption that game show prizes, school raffles and
pub-quiz sweeps are also exempt. Certainly, "Who wants to be 60% of a
Millionaire" doesn't have the same ring to it. Gambling winnings are also
exempt, up to the point where one is a "professional gambler". I use quotes
because I am not entirely sure how such a person is defined. It is quite
likely that even the Revenue don't like getting into areas like that
because, of course, if you tax winnings then you also ought to offset losses
and that's a can of worms.

[For US readers, our tax system is based on rather different principles to
yours. All earned income is taxed at source and there are very very few
expenses that can be offset. We fill in tax returns mostly to declare
additional earnings or claim allowances that the tax-man doesn't know about
or insists we mention every year.]

--
Too much month at the end of the money.

Mail john rather than nospam...


09 Jun 2004 18:10:50
Matt Aamold
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

As it should be. Hopefully a U.S. politician will soon realize that the
'capital gains tax' is a really bad idea. Earned taxes are a much better
way to collect

> Not up here...no taxes on lottery or other prize winnings.....you win the
> lottery for 10 million...you get a check for 10 million...no
annuities...no
> taxes.




09 Jun 2004 18:46:01
Howard Brazee
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


On 9-Jun-2004, "Matt Aamold" <maamold@comcast.net > wrote:


> > Not up here...no taxes on lottery or other prize winnings.....you win the
> > lottery for 10 million...you get a check for 10 million...no
> > annuities...no taxes.

> As it should be. Hopefully a U.S. politician will soon realize that the
> 'capital gains tax' is a really bad idea. Earned taxes are a much better
> way to collect

There is nothing inherently worse about taxing winnings than other taxes. Why
is taxing earnings better than taxing income from lottery or other prize
winnings? Are we afraid people won't buy lottery tickets if half of the
$50,000,000.00 gets taxed?

Capital gains taxes only hurt more if they decrease desired investments. But
to a politician, a "bad idea" is one that costs too many votes. So they
propose taxing the rich and the lucky figuring that most of us who aren't rich
and lucky will agree.


09 Jun 2004 11:56:52
Rude Dog
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

"Matt Aamold" <maamold@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:KoIxc.1067$eu.149@attbi_s02...
> As it should be. Hopefully a U.S. politician will soon realize that the
> 'capital gains tax' is a really bad idea. Earned taxes are a much better
> way to collect
>
> > Not up here...no taxes on lottery or other prize winnings.....you win
the
> > lottery for 10 million...you get a check for 10 million...no
> annuities...no
> > taxes.
>
>
We do have a capital gains tax in Canada. Lottery winnings don't fall into
that category.




10 Jun 2004 02:12:27
Matt Aamold
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur



"Rude Dog" <never@mind.com > wrote in message
news:10cenbm457j9g72@corp.supernews.com...
> We do have a capital gains tax in Canada. Lottery winnings don't fall into
> that category.

That's good, At least your guys have it half-right. Still haven't convinced
me to move to Canada though :-)




10 Jun 2004 03:33:02
Rod Barter
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur

nospam@bogusemail.com (gman99) wrote in message news:<20040609095416.226$pF@newsreader.com >...
> Not up here...no taxes on lottery or other prize winnings.....you win the
> lottery for 10 million...you get a check for 10 million...no annuities...no
> taxes.

That's about to change. Both the Liberals and the neo-conservatives
are talking taxing lottery winnings.


10 Jun 2004 12:59:38
Howard Brazee
Re: $45,000 prize and still an amateur


On 10-Jun-2004, rbarter@hotmail.com (Rod Barter) wrote:

> > Not up here...no taxes on lottery or other prize winnings.....you win the
> > lottery for 10 million...you get a check for 10 million...no annuities...no
> > taxes.
>
> That's about to change. Both the Liberals and the neo-conservatives
> are talking taxing lottery winnings.

I would think so - politicians like to get money where they can, voters don't
mind it if lottery winners pay, the easiest taxes to get passed are taxing
vice (which has been associated with gambling before the state took it over),
and taxing lottery winners doesn't significantly effect investment.

The reason for not doing so was to get people into believing that the state's
declaration of how much was paid out was honest. (I will pay 50 cents from the
dollar, except I will keep half of that 50 cents for taxes).