victory for poker in US

[frosst]

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/0...-case-1032.htm

cliff notes: read the name of the link ldo

[kb coolman]

Very, very nice.

[BankItDrew]

so is online poker OK now?

[kb coolman]

Strictly speaking, it's never been illegal. But this definately strengthens the arguement to remove online poker from the UIGEA umbrella.

[Reidak]

it sets a precedent.

I'm Canadian and im not sure how your federal system works, but as far as I know this case won't set any kind of binding guidelines about how other states should handle similar cases, and ultimately your fed carving out a place for poker outside of the uigea.

It does however provide some sort of reference to other judges about how to possibly handle similar cases.

[a500lbgorilla]

but I am above the law, so this doesn't affect me much

[BennyLaRue]

Strictly speaking, it's never been illegal.

Certain state laws made it unclear for players in those states and it most certainly is illegal in Washington. This clarifies things for Colorado and, as was stated, sets a very important precedent.

[Parasurama]

Strictly speaking, it's never been illegal.

Certain state laws made it unclear for players in those states and it most certainly is illegal in Washington. This clarifies things for Colorado and, as was stated, sets a very important precedent.

It is quite certainly illegal in Nevada as well.

[Jack Sawyer]

BOOM!!! HEADSHOT!!!

fwiw, poker IS gambling, but whatever to get the US fish back in the game.

the trick is to recognize that there cannot possibly be any taxes nor whatever on Poker specifically, because its just individuals pooling their money together (tourneys) not like an average lottery.

pokahs is unique from any other game, and its time those in power in the US realize this.

If they want to tax, the only thing which is fair to tax would be the rake, but then GG rakeback (unless we will start accepting 20 buck caps or something in cash games)

[kb coolman]

fwiw, poker IS gambling, but whatever to get the US fish back in the game.

the trick is to recognize that there cannot possibly be any taxes nor whatever on Poker specifically, because its just individuals pooling their money together (tourneys) not like an average lottery.

But this is totaly different from legalizing poker in the US, where regulations can require site to file W-2G forms with the IRS, stating profit or loss. Poker income IS taxable. Strictly speaking, if you make money in a home game, the amount you clear over your buy-in is taxable.

You can also itemize losses under Schedule A of a 1040, but only as an offset to taxable winnings.

[Jack Sawyer]

(Remeber that I come from a NO TAX ON GAMBLING WINNINGS OR LOSSES FOR THE CITIZEN country)

There are too many complexities in getting it taxed IMO.

First: how do you know the reported P&L is correct? Not everybody is anally retentive about their results. Others may outright lie, and who can say they did?

Second: The money you get to play in has already been taxed, by salarial taxes and whatever. since the game is about strictly money, and the money you got has already been taxed, why should you pay another tax on it or additional money won (or losses deducted) as if the money you had left (spending money) is now an actual asset? I don't know a better explanaton but double taxing is illegal anywhere I know of (in my admittedly limited knowledge)

Basically, the controls is rubbish. Someone has to willingly go up to the tax guy and say "well, I organized a home game last saturday, and I charged people $1 per pot, and we played 500 hands, so my gross income for that game was $500. I have to deduct the money I spent on fish and chips, which is $200 (shows fancy receipt). So, you can charge me tax on the resting $300."

The first amount he could simply conjure it out of thin air. All these "taxable facts" can be easily made up. Basically, I see it as if they want to tax poker just because they they think they should tax it, but the actual process will prove too complex for it to be anywhere near possible and properly realizable..

And then you can come with contra-argument that taxes are not by definition fair, and then I'll say "but it has to make sense". And then we will argue back and forth endlessly on this message board on the same points we have already made.

futility ftl imo


Edit: I skimmed through the link provided, and I have to say this: what determines profit (gambling winnings)? Do you have to provide all your hand histories for the year? How about you not providing some hand histories? how about you providing just 10% of your hand histories? And if it gets regulated and taxed, will they have to buy poker tracker or whatever to determine how much every individual won?

The only guys benefitting for this would be the people who make the trackers, as I hope they start providing the government volume discounts.

[a500lbgorilla]

Poker is gambling like Pluto is a planet.

[Sprayed]

(Remeber that I come from a NO TAX ON GAMBLING WINNINGS OR LOSSES FOR THE CITIZEN country)

There are too many complexities in getting it taxed IMO.

First: how do you know the reported P&L is correct? Not everybody is anally retentive about their results. Others may outright lie, and who can say they did?

Second: The money you get to play in has already been taxed, by salarial taxes and whatever. since the game is about strictly money, and the money you got has already been taxed, why should you pay another tax on it or additional money won (or losses deducted) as if the money you had left (spending money) is now an actual asset? I don't know a better explanaton but double taxing is illegal anywhere I know of (in my admittedly limited knowledge)

Basically, the controls is rubbish. Someone has to willingly go up to the tax guy and say "well, I organized a home game last saturday, and I charged people $1 per pot, and we played 500 hands, so my gross income for that game was $500. I have to deduct the money I spent on fish and chips, which is $200 (shows fancy receipt). So, you can charge me tax on the resting $300."

The first amount he could simply conjure it out of thin air. All these "taxable facts" can be easily made up. Basically, I see it as if they want to tax poker just because they they think they should tax it, but the actual process will prove too complex for it to be anywhere near possible and properly realizable..

And then you can come with contra-argument that taxes are not by definition fair, and then I'll say "but it has to make sense". And then we will argue back and forth endlessly on this message board on the same points we have already made.

futility ftl imo


Edit: I skimmed through the link provided, and I have to say this: what determines profit (gambling winnings)? Do you have to provide all your hand histories for the year? How about you not providing some hand histories? how about you providing just 10% of your hand histories? And if it gets regulated and taxed, will they have to buy poker tracker or whatever to determine how much every individual won?

The only guys benefitting for this would be the people who make the trackers, as I hope they start providing the government volume discounts.

I think that you are looking too deep into this. You are assuming that the US Govt. actually uses common sense and logic. All they will care is that you report your annual income. How you track this information is on you and when they think that something just isn't right because you are driving a 2009 Porsche Cayman S and you filled an annual income of $50k, they will audit your ass and it will be on you to justify things.

[kb coolman]

It's not that difficult guys, and if it's regulated by the Fed and the IRS, it will be the poker sites doing the reporting, not you. It will actually be remarkably easy for them to track what you're winnings/losses are. You would then be given a W-2G by the company, which would also be reported to the IRS. It wouldn't be too much different from the W-2 I already recieve from my employer or the 1099 I get for independent consulting.

[Stacks]

yeah.. But how much are we going to lose?

[kb coolman]

yeah.. But how much are we going to lose?

I'd prefer to just pay the taxes.

[frosst]

Poker is gambling like Pluto is a planet.

[ ] Pluto is a planet

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04...nger-a-planet/

[Jack Sawyer]

[ ] Pluto is a planet

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04...nger-a-planet/

then you got rilla's point.


But I still argue its gambling, but this guy probably explains it better than I do:

http://www.online-poker-insider.com/...-gambling.html


What should be overhauled is (are) the whole tax system(s) that think(s) they can and should somehow tax gambling winnings, while deducting gambling losses. Its crap.

Case in point: Danish Peter Eastgate moves from Denmark (which is also one of those crazy lets-tax-gamble systems) to London to evade taxes.


Says taxable talk:

"The United Kingdom does tax professional gamblers on their winnings. I've received a couple of emails stating that Inland Revenue hasn't been enforcing tax on professional gamblers' winnings. Given the high profile nature of Mr. Eastgate's victory it's hard for me to believe that Inland Revenue won't notice if Mr. Eastgate ignores the British taxman. Still, the tax rate in Britain (about 40%) is far less than the 72.27% Mr. Eastgate would owe in Denmark. This may be a case where the taxman rings the bell twice."

Source here: http://www.taxabletalk.com/posts/1226633535.shtml

The HM Revenue and Customs own handbook differs, and this is what matters:

The fact that a taxpayer has a system by which they place their bets, or that they are sufficiently successful to earn a living by gambling does not make their activities a trade.

Some ‘professional gamblers’ do carry on a trade, for example, where they receive appearance money for appearing on television programmes. They are providing a service to a customer (the television production company) for reward. Whether their gambling winnings are proceeds of that trade would depend upon the facts.

Source here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim22017.htm


What am I saying? The people who want to tax the hell out of you are blatantly ignorant (taxable talk is yankee btw) and have no idea what they are doing, except they want to make it seem like they have an idea by treating your *possible* gamble winnings like a wage. It isn't.
In essence, the rake just doubled (actually more like 8x), and you are taking it pants down.



Plus, you can always move to Monaco.

[kb coolman]

The point here in the States is that gambling winnings is taxable, and yes, it's a double hit. The winnings that are being taxed were already taxed when earned by the various day jobs of the folks bring it to the table.

What happens in other countries is irrelevant in relation to the OP. Poker is already legal in the US at B&M sites, and winnings are taxable. The only hope for making online poker legal is to subject it to the same regulations and tax structure.

[Jack Sawyer]

I think that you are looking too deep into this. You are assuming that the US Govt. actually uses common sense and logic. All they will care is that you report your annual income. How you track this information is on you and when they think that something just isn't right because you are driving a 2009 Porsche Cayman S and you filled an annual income of $50k, they will audit your ass and it will be on you to justify things.

I bring logic, reasoning, correct deduction and facts to the table. Wouldn't you want someone like me as a higher-upper in a tax department?

FWIW, my country pays one of the highest income taxes in the world. Plus we got a sales tax, and import tax, and whatever other tax.
But not on gambling. And the real estate tax is also very low, almost negligible.

Oh, and one more reason, specially if it applies to tournaments: its money pooled together. This "entrance money" is in theory already taxed, since its money and somehow got in your hands, assuming you have a job or whatever. Even if you won a satellite, its still money pooled from others (who also paid taxes to get their initial sums in theory) and your own to give you the buyin.
Which means taxing the buy-in is taxing the money pooled, and taxing the winnings is also taxing the money pooled. Its double dipping craziness.

If you compare the mony pooled to a PlayStation 3, you paid taxes to aqcuire it, and someone had to pay taxes to sell it to you. If you were ro sell it, you'd have to pay new taxes again, and someone else had to pay new taxes to aqcuire it. The circle goes on and on, while the system itself depreciates by use, actual money does not, money supply can only be inflated (and in some very rare cases deflated).


But I'm done now. Carry on.

[Jack Sawyer]

The point here in the States is that gambling winnings is taxable, and yes, it's a double hit. The winnings that are being taxed were already taxed when earned by the various day jobs of the folks bring it to the table.

I'm happy you realize this, but unhappy you seem content with it.

[kb coolman]

The point here in the States is that gambling winnings is taxable, and yes, it's a double hit. The winnings that are being taxed were already taxed when earned by the various day jobs of the folks bring it to the table.

I'm happy you realize this, but unhappy you seem content with it.

I'm in no way content with it, but it is what it is. The IRS is a boil on the ass of humanity.

[Stacks]

And then you can come with contra-argument that taxes are not by definition fair, and then I'll say "but it has to make sense". And then we will argue back and forth endlessly on this message board on the same points we have already made.

futility ftl imo

[GatorJH]

The point here in the States is that gambling winnings is taxable, and yes, it's a double hit. The winnings that are being taxed were already taxed when earned by the various day jobs of the folks bring it to the table.

I'm happy you realize this, but unhappy you seem content with it.

If you win money from a non US citizen that money has not been taxed.

If US Citizens are allowed to get tax credits for gambling losses then the taxes paid by the winners would offset this, no?

[bode]

flat tax FTW!

[kb coolman]

The point here in the States is that gambling winnings is taxable, and yes, it's a double hit. The winnings that are being taxed were already taxed when earned by the various day jobs of the folks bring it to the table.

I'm happy you realize this, but unhappy you seem content with it.

If you win money from a non US citizen that money has not been taxed.

If US Citizens are allowed to get tax credits for gambling losses then the taxes paid by the winners would offset this, no?

It's not a tax credit, but any tracked losses can be itemized against your winnings. It's no different than itemizing business expenses or loss. But in the case of online poker, it would really be irrelevant since they would be tracking your winnings/losses concurrently, and only the net result would be reported via W-2G.

Essential, legalizing online poker would allow you to state your occupation as a professional gambler, which you can do currently if you play B&M sites.

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing about the fairness of the US tax code (which I personally have many problems with). That's not the point. I'm just basing my argument on the how the current tax code is structured.

Flat tax would be nice, but that's not the world we live in today.

[Lukie]

The title of this thread is "victory for poker in the us", but I fail to see how it's a victory, or even relevant, for anybody outside of Colorado.

[ensign_lee]

The title of this thread is "victory for poker in the us", but I fail to see how it's a victory, or even relevant, for anybody outside of Colorado.

Because it sets a precedent for other courts and judges to follow.

[drmcboy]

the idea poker isn't gambling fuels most of the tilt that 'good' players have. It isn't roulette.

Gambling has a specific economic definition, referring to wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period of time.

I'm confused by the tax argument, aren't all taxes 'double' taxes? I pay taxes on the money I earn, spend it at McDonalds, then they pay taxes on it, use it to pay their employees, both of whom pay taxes...

[Ltrain]

You are all making a mistake thinking tax law is intuitive. If a law is passed making a defined activity is taxed= tax, it does not need to make sense.

[a500lbgorilla]

Poker is gambling like Pluto is a planet.

[ ] Pluto is a planet

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04...nger-a-planet/

lol thanks man

my sublime point was that some people also still thinking pluto is a planet. It's in that grey area. It's very clever.

[bode]

If you win money from a non US citizen that money has not been taxed.

If US Citizens are allowed to get tax credits for gambling losses then the taxes paid by the winners would offset this, no?

It's not a tax credit, but any tracked losses can be itemized against your winnings. It's no different than itemizing business expenses or loss. But in the case of online poker, it would really be irrelevant since they would be tracking your winnings/losses concurrently, and only the net result would be reported via W-2G.

Essential, legalizing online poker would allow you to state your occupation as a professional gambler, which you can do currently if you play B&M sites.

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing about the fairness of the US tax code (which I personally have many problems with). That's not the point. I'm just basing my argument on the how the current tax code is structured.

Flat tax would be nice, but that's not the world we live in today.[/quote]
you can file as a professional poker player even if you play 100% online.

[frosst]

Poker is gambling like Pluto is a planet.

[ ] Pluto is a planet

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04...nger-a-planet/

lol thanks man

my sublime point was that some people also still thinking pluto is a planet. It's in that grey area. It's very clever.

yea i know. but i'm pretty sure there are going to be a few that wouldn't get the reference........so i figured i'd elaborate