nickszalinskieb17_ESO wrote: »hmm, but it's not legal residence that affects the gambling tax and concessions. It only affects your income tax. Gambling concessions and taxes are based on where the company is located, not where the gambler lives. When a Syrian comes to gamble in Las Vegas, the staff won't be researching Syrian law, and won't reject him because they don't have concession in Syria.
Additionally, since you don'T have to pay to participate, it doesn't really count as gambling but as a sweepstake, so more like a contest than gamble. And well, ZOS won't earn anything on giving something away for free, so there will be nothing to tax.
And Iceland has quite high income tax rates. At least for sure higher than Poland. So, why Iceland is on the list, but Poland not?
It also makes no sense when it comes to import/export - then, it would be either all EU countries or none.
I've even tried to relate it to race - the excluded states in the US have less than 50% white-to-non-white ratio, but then neither Norway nor Rhode Island make any sense.
So, why such weird choice?
nickszalinskieb17_ESO wrote: »Why are the rules that weird?
I mean, Iceland is on the list, but Sweden and Norway not?
Why not open it only to Faroe Islands, Antarctica, Greenland and Liechtenstein?
nickszalinskieb17_ESO wrote: »hmm, but it's not legal residence that affects the gambling tax and concessions. It only affects your income tax. Gambling concessions and taxes are based on where the company is located, not where the gambler lives. When a Syrian comes to gamble in Las Vegas, the staff won't be researching Syrian law, and won't reject him because they don't have concession in Syria.