vpFREE2 Forums

Tax question number 1,565,876

While we all no doubt agree, “the government” (by which you mean federal government, many states - see below - are worse) does not tax “income” as we define it; the government taxes whatever it can and does so according to its own definitions. These are in statute and in the Internal Revenue Code, and need not be rational to hold up in court. So this would not be “laughed out of court” no matter how much documentation you have, without regard to the size of the dispute.

It’s even worse in some places … many states have a gross income tax, and do not allow gambling losses to offset gambling winnings. In those states, all your winnings are subject to the state income tax, even if you had no net income from gambling at all. In those states, I don’t think there’s any way to make any aspect of gambling a positive EV activity.

$100 is pretty trivial compared to how all this impacts many others, although I understand $100 means different things to different people. But the IRS is not banking on the amount being trivial; they are banking on the fact that the courts will uphold the law, and that it has nothing to do with a taxpayer’s (or all taxpayers’) idea of how the tax laws and IRS Code should work. The entry level clerks can quickly be bypassed; I’ve had one audit and, on my own, took it above the “first responders” of the IRS, and then I was able to negotiate a compromise (this was not a gambling issue, so don’t ask about the details) – but no matter how high up you take it, they will look to the law and the IRS Code for guidance.

And don’t forget, all “income” under these definitions should be reported - not just income that generates a W2G. So every trip to a casino, even if you use a daily log and net income / loss per day, will generate “income” if there’s a winning day, and it must be reported. This makes it even worse. And unlike taking deductions that are disallowed, which is usually correctable by just paying the tax and penalty if caught, failure to report income is criminal and can result in much worse consequences. So don’t think that a payout that does not generate a tax form is not reportable and it not taxable – it is.

Most gamblers I know only report W2G income. This does not surprise me; what surprises me is how freely they admit it to total strangers!! If the IRS had undercover agents hanging around casinos, they’d get a mess of tax offenders just listening to their “confessions.”

It sucks. So do a lot of other aspects of taxes. It can be changed – by the legislature – but not easily, and not likely even then. You know what they say about death and taxes – but the bright side is you only have to die once.

–BG

···

================



7a. Re: Tax question number 1,565,876

Posted by: melbedewy1…@…com chicken2692002

Date: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:53 pm ((PDT))

I think it is wrong. The government taxes “income”. If you can prove you are a net loser for the calendar year you have no gambling income; regardless of whether you itemize or not.

Income is taxed, not W-2 forms. …

This is pure sophistry.

Some entry level IRS clerks may be getting away with this nonsense. If someone pushes the issue-and IF they have the proper documentation-this would be laughed out of court. Of course for minimal amounts of money no one wants to go through the trouble, which is what they are banking on.


Barry,

A very nice summary of the tax situation for recreational gamblers. There is no one to lobby for changes to the absurd tax rules so no chance for change. You would think the casinos would have an interest in helping their customers not get screwed at tax time, but they probably see no benefit to their bottom line. I thought that casinos in states that do not allow gambling losses would suffer serious revenue declines, but I have to admit I was wrong on that prediction.

Chris

My point is that “the law” is not absurd at all-it taxes winning in a calendar year. If you have no winnings over the calendar year, and you can prove it with a diary and legitimate casino records, you have no winnings.

Another poster states there is “plenty” of citation evidence supporting. As a lawyer I would like to see just ONE tax law appellate case upholding such a bizarre result! Using such logic that a single bet is a “winning” if one were to make 100 $100 bets on “Player” in Baccarat, win 50, lose 50, one would have made zero profit but would have to report $5000 in “winnings” on Line 21. That is, like taxing slot machine handpays when one has proof he has lost money over the year, is simply not an interpretation any appellate court would entertain- in my opinion.

Here is a DC Circuit appellate ruling from 2013 (you may recognize the name of the Judge) that upholds the per-session limit on netting out wins and losses (the IRS actually wanted to tax every winning bet on this poor guy).

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F80DD179A16F848285257BA3004EA6D1/$file/12-1058-1445657.pdf

This rule against netting wins and losses for the year is well established. See Schollenberger v. Commissioner (US Tax Court):

“To permit a casual gambler to net all wagering gains or losses throughout the year would intrude upon, if not defeat or render superfluous, the careful statutory arrangement that allows deduction of casual gambling losses, if at all, only
as itemized deductions, subject to the limitations of section 165(d).”

Cogno

···

From: vpF…@…com <vpF…@…com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:31 PM
To: vpF…@…com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Re: Tax question number 1,565,876

My point is that “the law” is not absurd at all-it taxes winning in a calendar year. If you have no winnings over the calendar year, and you can prove it with a diary and legitimate casino records, you have no winnings.

Another poster states there is “plenty” of citation evidence supporting. As a lawyer I would like to see just ONE tax law appellate case upholding such a bizarre result! Using such logic that a single bet is a “winning” if one were to
make 100 $100 bets on “Player” in Baccarat, win 50, lose 50, one would have made zero profit but would have to report $5000 in “winnings” on Line 21. That is, like taxing slot machine handpays when one has proof he has lost money over the year, is simply not
an interpretation any appellate court would entertain- in my opinion.

Cogno,

I had not seen that ruling thanks for posting it. I believe any rational person would consider gambling tax laws absurd because they require people to pay taxes when their gambling generates no income even with the session rule. The “session rules” established by court decisions are still often not followed by the IRS. Without the session rule many regular gamblers would easily generate millions in wins and owe millions in taxes which makes “absurd tax laws” a huge understatement. The session rules just allow you to pay less tax on your imaginary gambling income.

All right I guess that settles it for now. A pretty absurd result and really punitive to low income penny ante slot and VP players. Under the new tax law only 10% or less people are itemizing so a lot of lower income people are going to get screwed over barely $1200 hits. Might be a great idea for non-itemizing 50 cent VP players to drop down quarters.

Another issue, say you win $10,000 one year and lose $5,000 the next two years. You just broke even, the $10,000 that first year was just dumb luck. But you get to pay taxes on the phantom $10,000 gain but get no carry forward losses on your losing years (like you would in stocks or cryptocurrency for example). Gambling losses cannot be used to offset other gains and cannot be carried forward to other years. After taxes you are actually a loser instead of the breakeven you thought you had. One way around this problem, to some degree, is to make sure you play at least Nzero (variance/edge/edge) hands per year, at least you substantially reduce this no loss carry forward penalty for gambling. At Nzero hands your odds of winning are about 84% with a 16% chance of losing (even though you have a “long term” edge). Dunbar generated a table of Nzero values at west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Bank_NO1.htm