[barmar]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-February-23, 17:39, said:

Many activities, including ballroom dancing, ballet, etc. require expertise and athletic ability, but I wouldn't want to see them in the Olympics either.

The IOC recognizes competitive balroom dancing as a sport. But due to limits on the number of events, and afforts to reduce them, they aren't included in the Olympic Games.

http://en.wikipedia....etitive_dancing

[32519]

Kite flying

[blackshoe]

One of these days a game is going to fall apart because everyone insists they have to be stationary.

[1eyedjack]

Stop Press:


http://www.independe...l-30040426.html

[barmar]

Yeah, the tax court is who I regularly rely on for definitions.

I'll bet they also have their own opinion about what constitutes a "marriage".

[1eyedjack]

To be fair, the tribunal went to great pains to clarify that it was purely considering the definition in the context of the legislation laid down in the EU directive and devolved UK legislation for VAT. They acknowledged that it was accepted as a sport for the purposes of IOC and Charity Commission definitions but considered that not relevant to the matter put before them.

But I have seen wording like this trotted out often enough. Having made up their minds what in their view the right answer should be, they then go to a lot of pains to try to prevent any possibility of appeal on the grounds that this or that factor has not been considered, by expressly showing in their obiter or ratio that the issues had been considered and then dismissed. There are for example some paragraphs acknowledging that mental acuity in an ageing population is demonstrably enhanced by playing bridge, and then pondering whether there is an "age-ist" problem with denying the geriatrics their VAT relief, followed by some tortuous rationale showing how it is all irrelevant, just in case someone were to take the point to the next level. It all looks a bit obvious, when you read the transcript with a suitably jaded view.

[barmar]

I understand. My flip reply was more of a commentary on why the government should have tax laws that care about the distinction between games and sports -- why are the latter tax-exempt?

This also comes up in the legal issues over same-sex marriages. Many people wonder why the government should be defining "marriage" and "family", instead of leaving it to individuals and religions. But as long as we have the government regulating insurance companies (who have family plans), banks (who have joint accounts for married couples), doctors and hospitals (spouses are allowed to make medical decisions for each other), and many other commercial entities (not to mention the tax laws of the government itself) that give special rights to spouses and family members, they need to have a clear definition.

[Vampyr]

The UK government has even stranger ways of defining what is subject to VAT and what is not.