vpFREE2 Forums

$1200 W2G

The suprising thing is that with the large gambling lobby in this country
now that they are not lobbying to up the W2G law to a more reasonable sum, like
$5000 or even $10000 (there has been a LOT of inflation since this was
originally set). It costs the casino industry a HUGE amount to process all the
extra W2G paperwork. Look at Harrahs, for example, which writes up a paper W2G
and then mails you another one! All those people typing up W2Gs, processing
them, sometimes mailing them, then having to put in the totals for win/loss
statements, and otherwise reporting them. HUGE costs.

(Casino lurkers -- please note above)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The "sin tax" lobby, IMHO, is much bigger. Just look at how Intelligent Design
and the decimation of all references to Christmas is being pushed and
accepted in so many venues. There is no way that the gambling tax is going
to be eased. They have a good thing going in that natural inflation maked the
burder more and more onerous.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, misscraps@a... wrote:

The suprising thing is that with the large gambling lobby in this country
now that they are not lobbying to up the W2G law to a more reasonable sum

misscraps wrote:

The suprising thing is that with the large gambling lobby in this
country now that they are not lobbying to up the W2G law to a more
reasonable sum, like $5000 or even $10000 (there has been a LOT of
inflation since this was originally set). It costs the casino
industry a HUGE amount to process all the extra W2G paperwork.

Recognize that the gambling lobby is relatively ineffective in
achieving most types of administrative change. Gambling is largely
considered a vice on the national level. It's only on the state
level, where states stand to reap a windfall of taxes, that gambling
lobbyists have the strongest ear.

Further, there are many other areas of tax reporting where the
threshold is set below $2000 -- Misc. Income, Self Employment,
Domestic Help Wages, etc. (the latter has recently been inflation
indexed -- likely reflecting the extent to which high level government
employees are caught up in the reporting requirement).

Industry cost of compliance will likely rate low on the totem pole as
motivation for the government to change the requirements. A
convincing argument, broadly applying to all low threshold reporting,
in and outside the gambling industry, that government costs could be
reduced WITHOUT an offsetting cost from reduced taxpayer compliance
(due to non-reporting) could effect change. But it would take a far
flung effort by several diverse interests to gain an ear and
convincing data on the impact on taxpayer compliance in properly
accounting for gambling winnings.

Bottom line, realize that to the extent that gambling lobbyists pursue
this issue they use up chits they might prefer to expend elsewhere ...
such as favorable reception to the mega congomeration in the industry.
W2-G processing might be viewed, in the scheme of things, about as
visible a cost as the daily replacement of machine tickets.

- Harry

Harry says:

Industry cost of compliance will likely rate low on
the totem pole as motivation for the government to change
the requirements.

It occurred to me that the major casino corps would
be more likely to look to techoogy to lower this cost
(ala tito getting rid of people doing coin fills)
before spending political chits. From one
point of view they're probably thrilled to count
the tax paid by winners in their positive impact
on local economies.

Right on, brother! There is almost infinite more liklehood of a transition to the automated
generation of W2-G's by the casinos, than their spending political chits to raise the $1,200
limit.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@p...> wrote:

It occurred to me that the major casino corps would
be more likely to look to techoogy to lower this cost
(ala tito getting rid of people doing coin fills)
before spending political chits.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@p...>
wrote:

> Harry says:
>
> Industry cost of compliance will likely rate low on
> the totem pole as motivation for the government to change
> the requirements.

It occurred to me that the major casino corps would
be more likely to look to techoogy to lower this cost
(ala tito getting rid of people doing coin fills)
before spending political chits. From one
point of view they're probably thrilled to count
the tax paid by winners in their positive impact
on local economies.

I don't have a problem with the $1200 limit. It's the way the IRS
makes us put the wins on the 1040 and losses on the sch A. If the law
was changed so that the "net" win was put on the 1040 then few of us
would worry about the limit.

By the way, does anyone know if this separation of wins and losses is
part of the law or just the IRS implementation and could be
challenged?

Dick

It is right in the tax code under miscellaneous income.

···

At 01:30 AM 11/11/2005 +0000, you wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@p...>
wrote:
>
> > Harry says:
> >
> > Industry cost of compliance will likely rate low on
> > the totem pole as motivation for the government to change
> > the requirements.
>
> It occurred to me that the major casino corps would
> be more likely to look to techoogy to lower this cost
> (ala tito getting rid of people doing coin fills)
> before spending political chits. From one
> point of view they're probably thrilled to count
> the tax paid by winners in their positive impact
> on local economies.

I don't have a problem with the $1200 limit. It's the way the IRS
makes us put the wins on the 1040 and losses on the sch A. If the law
was changed so that the "net" win was put on the 1040 then few of us
would worry about the limit.

By the way, does anyone know if this separation of wins and losses is
part of the law or just the IRS implementation and could be
challenged?

Dick

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The costs are really that huge. I have seen casinos with W2-G forms in
their printers )from a box of linked forms just like regular continuous
printer paper) and the computer that records the jackpot can easily type
in the info after entered by the attendant. Likewise the same software
keeps track of this for reporting as neeeded to auditors, gaming
commission, and the IRS. Raising the limti would just encourage more
dishonesty.

misscraps@aol.com wrote: The suprising thing is that with the large gambling lobby in this country
now that they are not lobbying to up the W2G law to a more reasonable sum, like
$5000 or even $10000 (there has been a LOT of inflation since this was
originally set). It costs the casino industry a HUGE amount to process all the
extra W2G paperwork. Look at Harrahs, for example, which writes up a paper W2G
and then mails you another one! All those people typing up W2Gs, processing
them, sometimes mailing them, then having to put in the totals for win/loss
statements, and otherwise reporting them. HUGE costs.

(Casino lurkers -- please note above)

I don't follow. How would raising the limit for requiring W-2G's
encourage more dishonesty? What kind of dishonesty?

···

On 11/18/05, pesach kremen <royalflush2222@yahoo.com> wrote:

The costs are really that huge. I have seen casinos with W2-G forms in
their printers )from a box of linked forms just like regular continuous
printer paper) and the computer that records the jackpot can easily type
in the info after entered by the attendant. Likewise the same software
keeps track of this for reporting as neeeded to auditors, gaming
commission, and the IRS. Raising the limti would just encourage more
dishonesty.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Curtis Rich wrote:

I don't follow. How would raising the limit for requiring W-2G's
encourage more dishonesty? What kind of dishonesty?

Tax reporting dishonesty.

If a 25c vp player makes a profit but never plays in a W-2G
situation, and chooses not to file a return, the IRS probably
won't be any the wiser.

Raising the W-2G level could put higher denomination
players in a position to do the same, if they so chose.

vpFae

You are kidding. Right?

bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:

I don't follow. How would raising the limit for requiring W-2G's
encourage more dishonesty? What kind of dishonesty?

I've often wondered when the government will decide to take gambling
winnings to the next level. The technology is clearly there for slots
and close for table games. Many side benefits can be shown.

The idea would be to require ALL gamblers to obtain a players'
card/license in order to gamble at an establishment. The card MUST be
inserted in the machines for the machines to operate and all results
MUST be kept by the casinos.

From a casino standpoint this would have both positive and negative
aspects. They would be the ones required to keep track of all your
gambling results and report it to the state/feds. However, this is not
unlike keeping track of sales tax and could be completely computerized.
The benefit is they would now have everyone automatically entered into
their customer database.

Of course, W2Gs would no longer be required since the actual win/loss
of every gambler would be available. Clearly, the data could be used in
other ways. Consider a person who is not making child support payments
and is found to be losing thousands of dollars every year. The gov't
could put them on a list and not allow them to gamble.

Of course, this also gets us closer to Big Brother.

Thoughts?

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae6128305" <vpfae6128305@C...> wrote:

Curtis Rich wrote:

> I don't follow. How would raising the limit for requiring W-2G's
> encourage more dishonesty? What kind of dishonesty?

Tax reporting dishonesty.

If a 25c vp player makes a profit but never plays in a W-2G
situation, and chooses not to file a return, the IRS probably
won't be any the wiser.

Raising the W-2G level could put higher denomination
players in a position to do the same, if they so chose.

vpFae

I would have no problem with this, as long as the "net win/loss" was used to compute
one's taxes. The rule to include winning as AGI and then claiming an itemized deduction
for losses is convoluted (in my opinion). It would seems sensible (to me) to just include
the "win/loss" as "income".

Of course, I would also like to decrease my AGI, if i had a losing year, in addition to
increasing my AGI for a winning year.

(What is that expression about "when pigs fly"?) <smile>

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

Of course, W2Gs would no longer be required since the actual win/loss
of every gambler would be available.

Thoughts?

Dick

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:

I would have no problem with this, as long as the "net win/loss" was

used to compute one's taxes. The rule to include winning as AGI and
then claiming an itemized deduction for losses is convoluted (in my
opinion). It would seems sensible (to me) to just include

the "win/loss" as "income".

Of course, I would also like to decrease my AGI, if i had a losing

year, in addition to increasing my AGI for a winning year.

(What is that expression about "when pigs fly"?) <smile>

Agreed...the words "logic", "reasonable" and "IRS" do not belong in the
same sentence.

Don the Dentist

No. I wasn't kidding. Why?

···

On 11/19/05, bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are kidding. Right?

bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:
>
> I don't follow. How would raising the limit for requiring W-2G's
> encourage more dishonesty? What kind of dishonesty?
>

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFae, also in response to your statement, put it better than I ever
could...quoting his statement...

.....bl

···

Tax reporting dishonesty.

If a 25c vp player makes a profit but never plays in a W-2G
situation, and chooses not to file a return, the IRS probably
won't be any the wiser.

Raising the W-2G level could put higher denomination
players in a position to do the same, if they so chose.

vpFae

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:

No. I wasn't kidding. Why?

Under your theory, having the W-2G level at $1,200 - higher
than from some other (smaller) amount, such as $100 - is
putting certain players (25c) in a position to not file a return,
too. So, what?
Do you think that the IRS should require paperwork for ALL
winnings, no matter how small, to ensure that ALL winnings
are reported on a tax return?
The $1,200 figure is arbitrary. Why not $1,000? Why not
$1,500? Etc.
I have a question regarding dishonesty....
If I hit a $1,000 RF during a 'session' but I end up losing
all of the RF $1,000 PLUS some of my own money, is it
dishonest to not report the $1,000 jackpot? If I am supposed
to report the $1,000 gambling winnings and deduct the $1,000
(maximum allowed) gambling losses, why can't I just report
nothing? The net tax affect (in my case) is the same - zero.
Is that dishonest? I don't think so. But, if you do, please
explain to me why it is dishonest.

···

On 11/20/05, bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@yahoo.com> wrote:

vpFae, also in response to your statement, put it better than I ever
could...quoting his statement...

.....bl

>Tax reporting dishonesty.
>If a 25c vp player makes a profit but never plays in a W-2G
>situation, and chooses not to file a return, the IRS probably
>won't be any the wiser.
>
>Raising the W-2G level could put higher denomination
>players in a position to do the same, if they so chose.
>
>vpFae

>>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:
>>No. I wasn't kidding. Why?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Unfortunately, no matter how "logical" you think your assessment is, it is dishonest
because it violates the IRS "rules" as they are written.

Please realize that you are preaching to the choir here. We all feel the way that you do.
But, the rules are the rules are the rules. Violating them is dishonest whether we like it or
not.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:

If I hit a $1,000 RF during a 'session' but I end up losing
all of the RF $1,000 PLUS some of my own money, is it
dishonest to not report the $1,000 jackpot? If I am supposed
to report the $1,000 gambling winnings and deduct the $1,000
(maximum allowed) gambling losses, why can't I just report
nothing? The net tax affect (in my case) is the same - zero.
Is that dishonest? I don't think so. But, if you do, please
explain to me why it is dishonest.

It may be for you but this is not strictly the case for all people, under all circumstances.

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@g...> wrote:
>
> The net tax affect (in my case) is the same - zero.

It would encourage mor e dishonesty as now more jackpots wouldn;t require paperwork. Some would choose to not report jackpots which formerly they had no choice about reporting. In either case winds are reporteable and losses may be deducted against them when you itemize, whether there is paperwork or not. I do make a note on the form of the amount of the tip given the staff on W-2G wins and give this info to my accountant witht he casino statements and my records of wins and losses. If it's a major win where th etip would be larger than the standard $10-$20 I have th erecipient sign a piece of paper acknowledging receipt of the tip.
   
  When I get a prize in a tournament such as the invites at the Stardust I ask the cage to photocopy the paper that states the amoutn of my win to keep better records.
   
  There are plenty of ways to avoid and minimize your taxes from 401k's to health care spending accounts to mass transit spending accounts to alloweable deductions.

  I don't follow. How would raising the limit for requiring W-2G's
encourage more dishonesty? What kind of dishonesty?

···

Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/18/05, pesach kremen <royalflush2222@yahoo.com> wrote:

The costs are really that huge. I have seen casinos with W2-G forms in
their printers )from a box of linked forms just like regular continuous
printer paper) and the computer that records the jackpot can easily type
in the info after entered by the attendant. Likewise the same software
keeps track of this for reporting as neeeded to auditors, gaming
commission, and the IRS. Raising the limti would just encourage more
dishonesty.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

  SPONSORED LINKS
        Online gambling Outdoor recreation Recreation software Gambling
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
  
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]