Your total winnings per session should be lower than your total W-2Gs.
You can manage your gambling to minimize session winnings. Do not leave
the casino with a small win. If you win big early continue playing as long
as you can as this will usually greatly reduce your net win for the
session.<<
Ha! It seems like I don't need a special management strategy to achieve
that result in most cases......
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Many players gamble till all their money is gone. They just can't quit, but the session method will help lower their reportable winnings.
There is another type of gambler who likes to "lock up" a winning session whenever they hit a winning streak. They can return the next day and give it all back and more, but brag about their win from the previous day. Stopping at some winning goal is popular with certain bogus "money management" strategies. It can result in higher taxes.
Chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the session method will help lower their reportable winnings.
Not to beat a dead horse (OK, maybe I am <smile>), but how many have successfully been able to argue with the IRS that their "winnings", using the session method, are less than their W2-G total?
I am not talking about individuals who file as a professional using Schedule C.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
bl ... I've taken to heart Jean's recent advice to report total w-2g's as gross winnings, and back into an appropriate loss number that gets to your actual net win. Presumably offered in consultation with Marissa Chien, EA, I take it as a strong sign that a "netting" methodology yields a losing battle with the IRS.
Were it not for real-life consequences (tax implications), I'd be tempted to tilt with the IRS over this for sport. And when they insist that that all wins must be reported gross, amend my return to show a TRUE gross win (coin-in +/- net loss/win) ... suggesting that their literal vice means reporting all $6+ mil in machine wins last year (offset with a sched A deduction of near equivalent coin-in as "loss")
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bornloser1537@...> wrote :
>the session method will help lower their reportable winnings.
Not to beat a dead horse (OK, maybe I am <smile>), but how many have successfully been able to argue with the IRS that their "winnings", using the session method, are less than their W2-G total?
I am not talking about individuals who file as a professional using Schedule C.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Some people will have to tilt with the IRS – if they live in some state-tax-unfriendly states. The cost would be so great if they didn’t try to go to the session method.
By the way, the new edition of the tax book (eBook only) is now available – and we covered this issue even more in detail than in previous editions.
------------------------------------------
Jean $¢ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
From: mailto:vpF…@…com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:22 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 20 JAN 2015
bl ... I've taken to heart Jean's recent advice to report total w-2g's as gross winnings, and back into an appropriate loss number that gets to your actual net win. Presumably offered in consultation with Marissa Chien, EA, I take it as a strong sign that a "netting" methodology yields a losing battle with the IRS.
Were it not for real-life consequences (tax implications), I'd be tempted to tilt with the IRS over this for sport. And when they insist that that all wins must be reported gross, amend my return to show a TRUE gross win (coin-in +/- net loss/win) ... suggesting that their literal vice means reporting all $6+ mil in machine wins last year (offset with a sched A deduction of near equivalent coin-in as "loss")
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bornloser1537@...> wrote :
the session method will help lower their reportable winnings.
Not to beat a dead horse (OK, maybe I am <smile>), but how many have successfully been able to argue with the IRS that their "winnings", using the session method, are less than their W2-G total?
I am not talking about individuals who file as a professional using Schedule C.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vp.wiz said: I've taken to heart Jean's recent advice to report total w-2g's as gross winnings, and back into an appropriate loss number that gets to your actual net win.
I agree.
My question was a bit different since I, maybe mistakenly, was reading in some comments that one could, using the "session method", put less than one's W2-G total on line 21. I do not see how one can do that without raising the "attention" of the IRS.
It is line 21 that puts the Medicare premium effect into place for the VP winner who is subject to Medicare premiums. Line 21 affects one's MAGI, even though one's actual losses might exceed one's winnings. The losses are entered as "deductions" on Schedule B and have no effect on one's MAGI.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
bl wrote, "It is line 21 that puts the Medicare premium effect into place for the VP winner who is subject to Medicare premiums. Line 21 affects one's MAGI, even though one's actual losses might exceed one's winnings. The losses are entered as "deductions" on Schedule B and have no effect on one's MAGI."
Schedule A, not B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schedule A, not B.
OOOPS! Sorry! Thanks.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]