vpFREE2 Forums

re our IRS problem - what we decided to do

As some of you know we filed our 2004 return using "Winning Sessions" for a
total for gambling income and "losing sessions" for losses. Our income was
less than W2G totals so we received a letter audit.

Our first reply was basically ignored, our second was lost. We contacted the
Taxpayer Advocate office to help get our response processed -- they came
back saying essentially:

1. You must list all W2Gs as income. You can't use Sessions. Revenue
Procedure 77-29 (which details how to do a gaming diary among other things) is
used to produce a diary to provide proof of losses - but not of "wins" (despite
the fact that it talks about Gambling Gains) - and we were misinterpreting
77-29 to imply using sessions was okay.

2. All 1099-Misc must go on a separate "other income" line and you cannot
deduct losses against them -- even if they came from gambling-related payouts
such as drawings in which you gambled more to get more entries - and thus the
more you gambled the more likely you were to win.

After over 6 months of stress we've decided to cave into the IRS and just
file their way and have filed an Amended return. For all we know we may still
hear back from them wanting more information, but hopefully this will end
our problem and limit any interest and penalties.

We could appeal - but there is no way to say if we would prevail or not.
The appeal process is long and there is no way to know how they would interpret
the tax code. We have some good points in our favor as to our original way
of reporting, but they could just say we are misinterpreting the code.
Meanwhile we'd have more stress and uncertainty. Hiring a tax professional may or
not help - and would probably cost $150-250 an hour or more -- soon costing
as much as half or more of the extra tax.

For individuals (not filing Sch C as "professional gamblers"):

If your Gambling Income is less than the total of your W2Gs you could be
audited. Once audited you will run into numerous low-level employees and brick
walls. To prove losses whether you use W2G totals, Session totals, or some
other figure for Gambling income: be prepared to have a contemporary
Gambling Diary with information including - where you gambled, date, time, machine
number, amount put in, amount out, names of people with you, and other
information (see IRS publications for information on this). Get win/loss statements
as well.

If you want to use Session totals instead of W2G totals, be prepared that
you probably will have to go through the appeals process to have a chance to
prove this. Be prepared for months of delay and you may have to provide copies
of your Gaming Diary at some point, as well as other documentation. Be
prepared to argue your case and possibly to hire a tax professional with
familiarity in this area - provided you can find one.

If you have 1099-Misc from gambling, if you lump them in with W2Gs you could
be more likely to be audited. They might never be noticed, or they might
be. If you are audited you will have to fight to prove they are from gambling,
and you probably will have to go through the appeals process to try to prove
your case.

It is interesting to note, that from all the private and posted responses I
received, only 1 person appeared to have definitely gone through the audit
process and then in the appeals process was allowed to use Sessions (they did
not go all the way to tax court). Strangely, the Taxpayer Advocate could not
find information about their case, despite the fact that I provided that case
number -- so I don't know what to make of that. Several other VP people had
been audited and allowed to use Sessions by specific auditors, but many
others had not been allowed to use Sessions. Many people caved in at the point
of auditing, as we have now done, and just gone with W2G totals.

I could not (nor could the Taxpayer Advocate office) find any specific tax
court cases, appeal cases, rulings, IRS regulations, etc, which specifically
allowed Sessions to be used or proved anything (one way or the other)
regarding Sessions or how to report 1099-Misc. from gambling -- in the absence of
that the IRS basically interprets the tax code as saying Gambling Income = W2Gs
and all 1099s-Misc, from whatever source, are "other income." Until someone
actually goes all the way through the appeals court and possibly Tax Court
on these issues, there appears to be no basis for an average person to say,
hey, my interpretation is correct versus the "usual" IRS interpretation.

If you want to use Sessions, you might be best off to contact Marissa Chien
or another tax professional with experience in this area who believes Sessions
can be used, and hire them to prepare your initial tax return. Even so,
you easily could be audited and may need go through the appeals process (perhaps
all the way to Tax Court). Note: I don't know whether Marissa or any tax
professional actually has helped a gambler prevail over the IRS regarding
sessions. Marissa did not want to take my case and provided little helpful
information. When I contacted a company called R.B.S. who had published a book
entitled "The Tax Guide for Gamblers" which discusses Sessions and provides a
tax service, I was told they cannot be used.

Generally speaking, it seems that with computer matching of returns to W2Gs,
more people are being audited for such discrepancies nowadays than a few
years ago. More letter audits are being done (versus seeing an actual human who
you can try to discuss things with). So my impression is that people were
more likely to be able to use Sessions a few years ago than now without audits
or with audits coming out in their favor.

Logic says to me that if I go into a casino for half an hour and win $500,
that is income, regardless of whether I got a W2G or not. If I play for half
an hour and got a W2G for $1200 but end up with only $500, logic says I won
$500 and have $500 in income -- not $1200. However, logic does not seem to
sway the IRS on this issue. Perhaps the appeals or Tax Court could be swayed
by logic -- but without someone going through that process, there is no way to
know. And for me, there is too much stress and uncertainty for me to be
willing to continue fighting, even though I believe in the end I might prevail.

Certainly anyone considering how to report Gambling Income as an individual
needs to realize that if you use Sessions and report Gambling Income as less
than the total of W2Gs you could very well be audited. Attaching a list of
W2Gs with your return and an explanation probably or possibly won't stop an
audit, as Jean Scott and Marissa Chien advise in their book "Tax Help for the
Frugal Gambler." It's a good idea to do so, if you are going that route --
but it probably won't stop an audit. Once you get a paper audit, you are in
for writing various responses or phoning to try to talk to someone
knowledgeable. I found it hard/impossible to find anyone knowledgeable in the area of
gambling, even when asking to speak to a supervisor. While you might have a
good experience and run into a supervisor or auditor who would quickly agree
that Sessions can be used because of Procedure 77-29, you are probably more
likely to experience something like we did, where at every turn the IRS people
you talk to say "you can't do it that way - you must list all W2Gs as income."

So in my opinion, if you are going to use Sessions and happen to have
Winning Sessions and thus Gambling Income total less than W2Gs - you should plan on
having to go through the long appeals process to try to justify this method.

Regarding Sch. C filers:

In the process of researching this I found that Video Poker who are using
Sch. C often are audited, but seem to generally be able to justify their
returns. In Tax Court cases, Professional Gamblers were not allowed to Gambling
Losses more than Gains. Sch. C filers have various problems and generally must
prove they have a profit in 3 out of 5 years and that they are working long
hours at their profession. Part-time gamblers will have a hard time proving
they are "businesses." C filers also have to make sure they can prove they
are a business done for profit and not a hobby, or they could end up having
gambling income be on Sch. C while gambling losses go on Sch. A. If you want
to file as Sch. C you probably should go to a tax professional before filing
to make sure you don't run into problems if you are audited (which is pretty
likely for professional gamblers).

I would like to thank all the people who responded to my posts. Also I
would especially like to thank Judy Slatin and Jean Scott who went out of their
way to help me write responses to the IRS letter audits. The unfortunate
thing is that after spending considerable time crafting well-worded responses,
the IRS either ignored them, lost them, or just responded with seemingly stock
answers/replies. At every turn it seemed I came up against brick walls and
delays, all of which made the whole auditing process very long and stressful.

A number of other people on the list have written me privately about
encountering similar problems and audits when they used Session totals, and many of
them have or are in the process of caving into the IRS as we have. The gray
areas of the current gambling regulations are confusing and not helpful to
taxpayers.

I do not currently know if there is any way to ask the IRS for a ruling on
subjects such as Sessions and 1099-Misc from gambling outside of the
auditing/appeal process. Obviously something needs to be done for the sake of
thousands and thousands of gamblers such as ourselves. Gambling has changed
considerably from the time when the IRS regulations were written, and inflation has
made the $1200 W2G commonplace for many gamblers.

Thank you for your patience. I hope this will be helpful to those of you
reporting gambling winnings or facing audits.

One other thing: when considering "positive games" and the profit
possibilities of gambling, one should consider the following "costs" as well:
    Increased taxes due to increased adjusted gross income (even if you are
a net loser as we are). Increased taxes due to reduction of your exemptions
and deductions if your adjusted gross income gets high enough. You may also
owe State tax on gambling, depending on where you live.

   If you are retired and on Medicare - in 2006 and thereafter, Medicare
costs will be based on your Adjusted Gross Income -- and your Medicare costs
will go up if your AGI reaches certain levels (I believe it is around $160,000
for a married couple). The 2006 cost will be based on your income in 2004
(generally speaking). 2007 based on 2006 income etc.

Even though we are net losers for 2004, our large numbers of W2Gs are
probably going to end up costing us well over $5000 because of taxes and Medicare
increases. As a result from now on I will be gambling far far less to keep my
AGI down. It is bad enough to lose money at gambling, but it is worse to
have to pay for the privilege of losing by paying increased taxes! It just
doesn't make sense.

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

···

From my experience, in my opinion gamblers should be aware of the following:

It is obvious that misscraps has been drawn over the coals by the incompetents in the IRS,
with whom she has been dealing.

But, reading her first point (copied below), if one cannot use "sessions", one must ask
where and how does one establish "wins", above and beyond what appears on W2-G's?

Surely, the IRS does not assume that a person's only "wins" are those reported on the W2-
G's, and that person only needs a diary to "prove" what the losses are.

.....bl

···

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

1. You must list all W2Gs as income. You can't use Sessions. Revenue
Procedure 77-29 (which details how to do a gaming diary among other things) is
used to produce a diary to provide proof of losses - but not of "wins" (despite
the fact that it talks about Gambling Gains) - and we were misinterpreting
77-29 to imply using sessions was okay.

As a result from now on I will be gambling far far less to keep my

AGI down. It is bad enough to lose money at gambling, but it is
worse to have to pay for the privilege of losing by paying
increased taxes! It just doesn't make sense.

Great summary...thanks!

Don the Dentist

···

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

Sorry to hear about your experiences MissCraps but I thank you for
taking the time to post detailed, blow-by-blow summaries of your
experiences. Frankly, what you've been forced to go through is
sickening. The IRS...blah.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dds2124" <dds6@...> wrote:

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

  As a result from now on I will be gambling far far less to keep my
> AGI down. It is bad enough to lose money at gambling, but it is
>worse to have to pay for the privilege of losing by paying
>increased taxes! It just doesn't make sense.

Great summary...thanks!

Don the Dentist

misscraps wrote:

After over 6 months of stress we've decided to cave into the IRS and
just file their way and have filed an Amended return.

I'm disheartened, for your sake, since there's little doubt that this
has cost you.

Your experience stands in contrast to the advice provided in the
Scott/Chien publication "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler" (as you've
noted previously). That booklet provides strong encouragement that
there is a basis for summarizing play by sessions -- notwithstanding
the fact that the word "session" is absent from the related IRS tax
guidance.
                                                                     
That's not to suggest that Chien fails to advise that you'll meet some
resistance to this reporting method. She gives every indication that
escalation of a challenged return can be expected. However, the
bottom line conveyed is that the IRS will buy on to the reporting if
thoroughly documented and explained, once you reach a reasoned mind.

From that, I was heartened that should my return ever be challenged,
coping with the IRS could be a DIY project. It's blatantly apparent
from your account, mc, that if you intend to push in this direction
that you'd better engage a hired gun -- and take into account that
expense in deciding if it's reasonable to proceed. For that matter,
that conclusion suggests professional preparation of your return by
someone who's prepared to do just that.

···

------

The whole approach the IRS has taken toward your reporting is
disconcerting, to say the least.

Most troubling, is that it's simply indefensible. No matter how you
interpret the limited guidance they provide, there's no ground on
which one can assert that proper reporting is to declare your w-2g's
as income, and net all your other gaming activity out as a net losses.

The guidance is very specific in stating that wins are to be tallied
separately from losses during the year. It doesn't say, report only
w-2g winnings as income (and, presumably, if you have a net win for
the year but nothing hits for $1200+, you have no income to report).

------

If you are to report payoffs producing w2-g reported wins, I can see
nothing that would except other winning payoffs from being reported as
wins as well.

And, since you aren't permitted to deduct your wager from winnings
that are reported via w2-g, then the outcome is that all wagers would
be reported as losses.

For example, if you played $1 vp for exactly one play and hit a RF,
you report $4000 in gambling winnings and $5 in an offsetting loss
deduction.

Take a player who over the course of a year records $1,000,000 in vp
wagers, and whose records reflect a net $10,000 loss. Under this
interpretation, that player would record $990,000 in gross wins and
$990,000 in gross loss (the loss capped by wins, from the $1,000,000
otherwise reportable).

Now that'll wreak havoc with deduction phaseouts and tax credit
elimination as a consequence of the artificial AGI inflation.

------

I wish I were exaggerating with that example, but I don't see that I
am in the least. How the IRS would maintain that you consolidate
individual bet payoffs only if they result in reporting, but no other
wins is inconceivable -- other than that those who have made that
specific interpretation haven't stepped foot into a casino and think
of the w-2g's in the same way that you report w-2's from wages.

Scott/Chien draw an analogy for filing logic from that expected of
table players. There, no wins are reported via w-2g (although
currency transactions of any kind in excess of $10K are reported to
stem money laundering -- and that doesn't include the transfer of chips).

The IRS doesn't look for a table player to tally up each individual
win, nor only those that exceed a given magnitude. They simply expect
a tally of the net session result, win or lose, and total that into
their reporting of gross wins or losses.

Chien looks to this as direction for slot play reporting in absence of
a stronger written guidance. Most importantly, she gives the strong
sense that this has been sufficiently defended with IRS examiners that
it warrants recommendation to others.

There's a key caveat in her discussion; she suggests that the most
successful reception to a defense of this reporting will come from a
senior agent with gambling familiarity -- perhaps a reasonable find in
LV, but more dubious in other parts of the country.

------

This is an important issue - many of us play $.50+ denoms/$.25+
multilines that will give rise to w-2g's. It doesn't take a raft of
$1 RF's to push a couple with upper-middle class income into AGI
strata that threatens an inflated tax bill, even if net losers.

In light of mc's experience, I would prefer to see far more
comprehensive coverage/discussion in the Scott/Chien booklet of the
issues and considerations. The discussion at present, while
informative, is far more cursory than would ideally be useful.

Even more, I would love it if a tax professional such as Chien would
engage in a temporary active discussion on this group to help us all
better understand what's at stake and arm us with the information
necessary to make an informed decision in our tax filings.

- Harry

If you want to use Sessions, you might be best off to contact

Marissa Chien

or another tax professional with experience in this area who

believes Sessions

can be used, and hire them to prepare your initial tax return.

Even so,

you easily could be audited and may need go through the appeals

process (perhaps

all the way to Tax Court). Note: I don't know whether Marissa

or any tax

professional actually has helped a gambler prevail over the IRS

regarding

sessions. Marissa did not want to take my case and provided

little helpful

information. >

I generally don't write in these forums on topics such as these
because I have learned that you never satisfy everyone and everyone
seems to think that they are right.

However, I don't appreciate having my name attacked in a public forum
and I am now compelled to defend myself.

Misscraps contacted me over the summer regarding her problem. Right
off the bat she blamed me for her troubles because she followed our
book. Jean and I make it very very clear from the outset that our
book cannot possibly address the nuances and the infinitely different
scenarios that each person can face and that at the end of the day,
they need to contact their own tax professional regarding their own
individual situation.

For my clients whose returns I prepare, I advise them of the pitfalls
of the session method and that they could be in for a battle and a
lot of them do choose just to report the W2G number especially if the
increase in tax due to AGI phaseouts is less than the potential cost
of representation. Although, I did represent one client who went all
the way thru the system and actually filed a case in Tax Court just
to have it dismissed in his favor at the pre-trial Appeals Conference.

I told her I would review what she had written to the IRS previously
at no charge and to give her some general advice but that if she
wanted me retain me to represent her and respond to the IRS on her
behalf that my fee is $250/hr. Misscraps complained that my fee was
too high. I make it a point to price myself right in the middle of
the price spectrum. I have plenty of people who happily pay my fee.
I know professionals who charge anywhere from $100/hr to $400/hr in
representation matters. The only other person that I know of who
specializes in gambling matters is out of Chicago and he charged
$400/hr 5 years ago.

Before I even had a chance to review Misscrap's case, she trashes
Jean's and my book in this forum. Needless to say, i wasn't going to
help someone who wasn't going to appreciate or value my help and
thought I was too expensive so I did decline to take her on as a
client.

Quite frankly, Misscraps' problem is rather routine and I have
assisted numerous other gamblers in her situation. I totally agree
that the IRS is a very frustrating bureaucracy to navigate and that
it takes time to find a knowledgeable person to speak with, but they
do exist. I suspect Misscraps didn't do herself any favors at the
IRS if she approached them with the same attitude that she approached
me.

I treat all of my clients professionally and I expect all of my
clients to behave professionally as well. And if they can't treat me
with respect and courtesy like I treat them, then I have absolutely
no need or no desire to work with them.

MissCraps,
   
  I'm sorry to hear how the story ended, but I appreciate your sharing all with us. Undoubtedly, many of us will benefit from your troubles -- so thank you.
   
  Lainie

···

---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

$420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/month - Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage? Find Out!

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

Marissa Chien wrote:

I generally don't write in these forums on topics such as these
because I have learned that you never satisfy everyone and everyone
seems to think that they are right.

I'm sure I'm not alone in being pleased that you chose to post. (It's
been some time.)

I separately expressed the desire for an extended discussion of the
tax matters raised here recently. I can appreciate why you might be
somewhat reticent about participation in such a dialogue. (In fact, I
can imagine that you might downright loathe the thought.)

When it comes to throwing around facts and ideas about a complex
subject, the source can sometimes be regarded as little better than
"fish in a barrel" to those who insist on a simple treatment.

Nonetheless, for the group members having a particular thirst for the
intelligence and insights you might present, I'd encourage you to take
a shot at the exercise and see how it goes. I expect that you enjoy
sharing your knowledge when its constructively received.

Ideally, where someone does question your interpretation of the code,
they can simply present their alternative take for your feedback and
critique, without finding it necessary to pose an outright challenge
to you.

If this has some appeal, you may wish to contact the group
Adminstrator, who potentially might (if desired) establish a separate
temporary forum that could be subject to stronger moderation, as
called for.

- Harry

I am very sorry, MissCraps, that you had such a hassle over this with the IRS. I am not surprised you received the first letter audit; unfortunately that is fairly common even if you attach a list of your W2G's and an explanation because it often doesn't get the attention of a real person at this point; it is just computer generated. (It is almost a given if you don't attach the list with the explanation.) However, in my personal experiences and those of many I know, a letter of explanation solves the issue quickly.

What does seem strange are the problems you had after you responded to that letter audit. I am especially surprised that the Taxpayer Advocate office didn't seem to know anything about gambling as evidenced by their unfamiliarity with "sessions." Marissa has worked with them and many IRS employees in the district that usually handles Las Vegas returns - and they have been more knowledgeable about gambling issues than in other parts of the country. (Although this may be changing, with casinos all over the country.)

If your W2G total amount is not very much larger than your actual session win, I would understand your trying to avoid a possible hassle by using the W2G figure, even if you have to pay a little more in taxes. And, if you can itemize, you can just make your loss figure the "right" amount so it would be the same as if you put win/loss session amounts. If you were audited, you could show your diary that would support those figures.

For some players, this option is not really open to them. If they have a much larger W2G amount than a "win" amount done by sessions, it might be cheaper for them to pay for professional advice and/or representation (if they are audited) than to pay a much larger tax bill and/or lose deductions because of a larger AGI (adjusted gross income). And those in states where there is a state income tax on wins but no allowance for losses, this becomes a major problem.

Despite MissCraps bad experience, I don't think most recreational gamblers should be unduly worried about a gambling amount audit - this is just one case. It is much more likely that you will not hear from the IRS at all, whether you use the "session" method or use your W2G amounts. And if you do hear from the IRS, usually a short note of explanation will suffice. And if you have kept a complete and accurate diary, I predict that it will usually take you through a full-fledged audit.

Miss Craps, did you even get to the place where you could show someone your diary? I think you said you had kept a complete and accurate one. I really understand your deciding to pay up and make the hassle all go away. Everyone has their limits!!!!! Personally I would have persevered until I could have shown it in person to an IRS employee. Nothing like a day-by-day diary to show the true picture of gambling to a non-gambler.

As far as gambling 1099s being accepted, this is a grayer area than "sessions," but we and many others are combining them with our W2G's and haven't been audited. Perhaps 2006 will be the year we are audited on this - with a gambling 1099 for $500,000!!!! However, big poker players are doing this all the time. But the fact that we (and many big poker players) file as a business may muddy this issue for the recreational gambler. Again, for small amounts, it might be wiser to try to avoid any possible hassle by not counting your casino tournament/drawings in with your W2G's. Or, count them and hope you get by, with the idea that if the IRS writes you a letter about then, you'll just pay up and avoid any future hassle. Most of the time the IRS will never write to you about these in the first place!!!!

As Marissa and I kept repeating over and over. Do not take our words as God's truth - I don't think the IRS cares about God or even acknowledges him/her!!!! We discuss options and issues - but the bottom line is that you must make your own interpretations if you do your own tax returns - or, if you use a tax preparer, be sure he/she is knowledgeable about gambling issues and then take their advice.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
   frugal products are now available at my
   new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
   E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Marissa Chien wrote:
> I generally don't write in these forums on topics such as these
> because I have learned that you never satisfy everyone and

everyone

> seems to think that they are right.

I'm sure I'm not alone in being pleased that you chose to post.

(It's

been some time.)

I separately expressed the desire for an extended discussion of the
tax matters raised here recently. I can appreciate why you might be
somewhat reticent about participation in such a dialogue. (In

fact, I

can imagine that you might downright loathe the thought.)

When it comes to throwing around facts and ideas about a complex
subject, the source can sometimes be regarded as little better than
"fish in a barrel" to those who insist on a simple treatment.

Nonetheless, for the group members having a particular thirst for

the

intelligence and insights you might present, I'd encourage you to

take

a shot at the exercise and see how it goes. I expect that you enjoy
sharing your knowledge when its constructively received.

Ideally, where someone does question your interpretation of the

code,

they can simply present their alternative take for your feedback and
critique, without finding it necessary to pose an outright challenge
to you.

If this has some appeal, you may wish to contact the group
Adminstrator, who potentially might (if desired) establish a

separate

temporary forum that could be subject to stronger moderation, as
called for.

- Harry

Harry thank you for your kind and diplomatic words. I don't post tax
advice for the same reason a doctor would not dispense medical advice
on a board.

It is very individualistic and unique. I would hate for one to use
someone else's situation for their own.

Everyone is welcome to contact me privately. I do respond to e-mails
and I will usually give anyone who calls me about 5-10 min of my time
and provide some general guidance and try to point them in the right
direction. If someone wishes to have me represent them or wants a
more detailed analysis, I can be retained on an hourly basis.

Marissa

marissa2c wrote:

I don't post tax advice for the same reason a doctor would not
dispense medical advice on a board.

Understood.

I was hoping that the discussion might be limited to a greater
explanation of the ground covered in your and Jean's book. However, I
can see where it would be inevitable that the information sought would
stray to personal circumstances, since that would be the perspective
that likely provokes participation in the first place.

I'm quite serious about the suggestion in my initial post - that a
revised edition of your guide be issued. The information is presented
in a very concise manner that would greatly benefit from elaboration
and clarification with more examples.

In addition, there should be additional discussion of what one might
confront in reporting gaming activity on a session basis. I think I
was underprepared for anticipation of the rigors that potentially are
involved.

From the latest discussion and misscraps report, it's now my
impression that, unless a very substantial additional tax liability
would be incurred through a W-2G based income presentation, a session
approach should be foregone.

Not intending to belabor this, I'd still like to see a discussion of
the pros and cons of including 1099 gaming related income with
gambling income. It seems very logical to me that if gaming activity
is necessary to participate in the 1099 producing activity, then it
should be considered a direct extension of gaming. However, I get the
strong sense that your interpretation of the code doesn't support this.

- Harry

Jean and i are currently working on a 2nd edition of our book and will
be adding material and stuff that we've learned since the publication
of our first book. Hopefully it'll be out in time for the heart of tax
season.

I am no fan of the IRS ,but, I would tend to think of 1099s as being non gambling even though we never would have been offered the slot tourney play or whatever unless we had gambled.

I don't post tax advice for the same reason a doctor would not
dispense medical advice on a board.

Understood.

I was hoping that the discussion might be limited to a greater
explanation of the ground covered in your and Jean's book. However, I
can see where it would be inevitable that the information sought would
stray to personal circumstances, since that would be the perspective
that likely provokes participation in the first place.

I'm quite serious about the suggestion in my initial post - that a
revised edition of your guide be issued. The information is presented
in a very concise manner that would greatly benefit from elaboration
and clarification with more examples.

In addition, there should be additional discussion of what one might
confront in reporting gaming activity on a session basis. I think I
was underprepared for anticipation of the rigors that potentially are
involved.

From the latest discussion and misscraps report, it's now my
impression that, unless a very substantial additional tax liability
would be incurred through a W-2G based income presentation, a session
approach should be foregone.

Not intending to belabor this, I'd still like to see a discussion of
the pros and cons of including 1099 gaming related income with
gambling income. It seems very logical to me that if gaming activity
is necessary to participate in the 1099 producing activity, then it
should be considered a direct extension of gaming. However, I get the
strong sense that your interpretation of the code doesn't support this.

- Harry

···

Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote: marissa2c wrote:

---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

   Don't quit your job - take classes online and earn your degree in 1 year. Start Today

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

From the latest discussion and misscraps report, it's now my
impression that, unless a very substantial additional tax liability
would be incurred through a W-2G based income presentation, a

session

approach should be foregone.

- Harry

In light of this "impression", I return, as a recreational player
and a non-professional with respect to my IRS expertise, to
something that I asked earlier. And, maybe I have missed something
vital in all of the preceding discussions.

However, if one does choose to go through a W2-G based income
presentation, where and how does one establish "wins", above and
beyond what appears on W2-G's? Surely, the IRS does not assume that
a person's only "wins" are those reported on the W2-G's, and that
person only needs a diary to "prove" what the losses are.

I am guessing that Harry may be implying what was said by "Anteroz"
a couple of messages back. Namely, that one keeps records,
according to "sessions", but extracts W2-G "events" and report them
separately and individually, so that a W2-G "event" is always
a "winning session".

I am not offering advice, nor am I trying to put words into Harry's
mouth. I am just trying to keep a discussion going, in an attempt
to understand better what each of us might do to give us more
knowledge and understanding.

Of course, this does not address, and I am not including here
anything about 1009-misc reporting.

…..bl

RachelofSeattle wrote:

I am no fan of the IRS ,but, I would tend to think of 1099s as being
non gambling even though we never would have been offered the slot
tourney play or whatever unless we had gambled.

I understand.

However, I view this in the context of, for example, a tournament
whose sole criteria of entry is that you have a rating that represents
an expectation you will lose at least $1000 on average (i.e. you will
actively play with a theoretical loss of $1000 min) each time you step
onto the property and engage in recorded activity of any type -- even
if it's just to redeem a promotion.

Another situation is a sweepstakes in which you earn entries for every
$100 coin-in, and the typical winner has played through at least $10,000.

Since either of these are strictly contingent upon play, I see their
economic value as being little different than cashback in nature --
which if accurately accounted for, likely should be recorded as
gambling income.

···

------

Marissa Chien argues (in Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler) that
"cashback is gambling income ... (because it's) earned pursuant to a
particular formula and you're entitled to that cashback if you meet
the statutory requirement of earning it." She goes on to cite that
the "Nevada Gaming Control has ruled time and time again that you're
entitled to the cashback earned".

FWIW, she also maintains that comps may be excluded from income
because they're of a discretionary nature and (as some have found)
they can be withdrawn at the casino's discretion as well.

With respect to drawings and tournaments, Marissa writes "since you
won that prize through the direct act of gambling, it's technically
gambling income." She adds, "if previous gambling is a criterion for
the invite and you're expected and even required, albeit tacitly, to
gamble to receive future invitations then the winnings from these
tournaments should be considered gambling income, not prizes.

------

It's important to note that she advises all opinions provided are
strictly qualified as being "a general guideline for the general
public" and the issues "ultimately depend on the facts and
circumstances of each individual taxpayer ... it's imperative that
tax- paying gamblers consult with tax advisors regarding person
situations".

Certainly, if you aren't entirely comfortable reporting in this
manner, it's likely best that you don't. (I'll also note that I
clearly misrepresented, by suggestion, Marissa's position on this
topic in a previous post.)

- Harry

It should be apparent that I consider "Tax Help for the Frugal
Gambler" to be a worthy purchase for anyone striving to come to a
better grasp of the variables involved.

I trust that I'm not in violation of intended copyright protections in
providing extracts from the guide.

bornloser1537 wrote:

However, if one does choose to go through a W2-G based income
presentation, where and how does one establish "wins", above and
beyond what appears on W2-G's? Surely, the IRS does not assume that
a person's only "wins" are those reported on the W2-G's, and that
person only needs a diary to "prove" what the losses are.

It's with some hesitation that I offer up a response, for I'm not a
tax professional nor possess an understanding of this topic beyond
closely reading the limited IRS guidance and digesting the Scott/Chien
publication.

However, there are some aspects that lend themselves to logical
interpretation and extension of what is laid out by the IRS that merit
discussion, simply for the sake of gaining a stronger understanding of
the variables at play (but certainly not as an authoritive guidance of
any form).

Further, the Scott/Chien book specifically addresses most (if not all)
of the tax related areas that are likely to arise here, to one degree
or another. In absence of Marissa's active participation (the
motivation of which I grasp), I feel what she offers up merits an
accurate, abbreviated citation. (I await a "cease and desist" email :wink:

As discussed in a concurrent post by me, the Scott/Chien guidance is
strictly qualified as "no more than a general guideline" and that
"tax-paying gamblers (should) consult with tax advisors".

···

------

Personally I see an inconguity in the W-2G based reporting that is
clearly expected by the IRS given what triggers a letter audit (any
mismatch between the W-2G sum and reported gambling income, where
what's reported is less than that total).

They appear to be clearly satisfied so long as reported gambling
income ties to reported wins. Yet, as I recently suggested, the only
logic under which certain individual wins are reported in whole would
be if any single bet win were to be reported in that manner. I can't
conceive of any other reasoning.

Of course, my logic yields a ludicrous outcome, which I maintain
invalidates this reporting method entirely.

It would require an extended quotation to reasonably represent what
Marissa Chien advises in "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler". That's
inappropriate. There is the suggestion that should the IRS review
your return they may assume you had other winning sessions that aren't
represented. For this reason she indicates that a gambling diary is
essential backup to support your reporting.

Your question raises the basic issue of what else might be considered
reportable as gambling income under a "W-2G based approach". I
personally can't find any satisfactory answer. Certainly a reporting
of other session-based net wins is entirely inconsistent with
inclusion of W-2G income unadjusted for losses.

What galls me most is that the treatment suggested by IRS practice
(when reviewing returns for insufficient reported income) lends a
strong motivation to sidestep these questions altogether and simply
report gross W-2G totals (even should that be less than what a player
takes away from a year's play) -- with expectation that this will
attract nominal attention and likely involve far less aggravation than
any other reporting basis. The IRS implicitly encourages us to become
tax cheats.

- Harry

(Surely you didn't expect that I'd offer up some type of definitive,
conclusive answer :wink:

No, not at all. This whole thing is a really murky situation, subject
to all sorts of interpretations (and mis-interpretations) brought
about purely by the IRS's lack of consistent and
definitive "instructions".

But, in a forum such as this, we can at least talk and opine, all of
us being absolutely certain that what we say has no legal (or illegal)
standing. It is a "rap session", similar to sitting around a table
drinking pitchers of Miller Lite.

I do appreciate all of the comments. I think it gives us all "food
for thought" and ways to try to make up our minds about our own
individual circumstances.

Thanks, Harry!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

(Surely you didn't expect that I'd offer up some type of definitive,
conclusive answer :wink:

I have been audited only once (2002) out of the 12-15 tax returns in
which I had W2Gs to report. On that one return I failed to send in the
annual statements I received from the casinos where I played. When I
supplied those statements the auditor closed the audit.

Providing a report from a reliable third party will go a lot further
than having a personal diary as evidence.

As some of you know we filed our 2004 return using "Winning

Sessions" for a

total for gambling income and "losing sessions" for losses. Our

income was

···

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

less than W2G totals so we received a letter audit.
ETC ETC