If you had actually read all that I wrote, you would see that I said the
exact same thing you did, worded slightly differently.
Don't make it look as if I said something else, so you can disagree with me.
I wrote:
"Many places will let a husband sign for a wife, and vice versa. As for
signing for other family members, I don't think it's legal. But if the
casino goes
along with it, I don't see how the IRS would find out, unless some sort of
audit showed the $2000 jackpot on your mother's card, and no declaration of
same on her tax return."
Brian
ยทยทยท
==========================================
In a message dated 11/15/2007 7:42:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
npf15251@yahoo.com writes:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@... wrote:
The key difference is that you ASKED. Therefore, the casino could
not think you were trying to "get away" with anything.
A more relevant point is what the response would be if the IRS were
asked. You might not like the answer.
I don't begrudge a man paying taxes instead of his mother. It's
probably what I would have done in that situation. But using her
jackpot as an offset to his losses so that no taxes are paid? I'm
concerned that the casino allows IRS audits of player's club tracked
jackpots. Jackpots are coded as "events" that are easily traced back
to the slot card in play at the time.
The strategy can only safely work if the mother's slot card is not
inserted when she hits the taxable jackpot. And, even then, you've
got all those cameras watching...
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]