agent's attempt to overturn a Supreme Court decision that prevented his exemption from paying foreign currency tax ---- although it did leave the door open for possible future success.

In October of last year, Mr. Barry Kessel, a Sandys concessionaire who collects bets on foreign football from local gamblers and then sends them to a bookmaker in Britain, brought the Accountant General to court in an effort to lower the current betting tax from 30 percent to the pre-1991 level of 20 percent.

He claimed at the time that he was providing a service and should therefore be exempt from a 10 percent levy on foreign currency purchases under the 1975 Foreign Currency Purchase Tax Act. The act allows "services'' to avoid such a tax.

Mr. Kessel also wanted the Accountant General's office to refund the tax he had paid to that point, which he estimated at about $100,000.

In November, however, Chief Justice the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward denied his claim, saying Mr. Kessel had failed "to bring himself clearly within the exemption.'' Last week, the Court of Appeal accepted that Mr. Kessel's role as Bermuda concessionaire for Littlewoods Pools of Britain does constitute a service, on the grounds that he provides "work or assistance to others.'' Furthermore, "the payments made by the Appellant to Littlewoods have two elements to them, the wager which is made by the punters themselves and the payments which are made to Littlewoods, who operate the pool betting business and provide the facilities in the United Kingdom through which punters can place their bets on the pools, the Appellant being the conduit through which the punters' bets are forwarded to Littlewoods.'' Because Littlewoods does provide a service to local punters, however, Mr.

Kessel "would have to satisfy the Accountant General with details to show how much of the remittances to Littlewoods represents their charges for service and how much is put to the betting pool. The amount retained by Littlewoods for their services would be the amount for which the Appellant could claim exemption.'' Because Mr. Kessel could not provide the earlier Supreme Court hearing with the "percentage Littlewoods retains from the monies sent to them by him'' -- he only "presumed that Littlewoods took a percentage of these remittances'' -- the Appeal Court rejected his appeal on the grounds that "the originating summons as drafted could only lend itself to this result.'' This did not mean, however, that Mr. Kessel could not try his case again with the information required.