Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
lol
lmao.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
lol
lmao.
BRO MEAN
like you didnt have to do the - jesus christ tine
https://x.com/RealW2Jesus/status/1940205342224523511
I'd want to read this portion of the bill myself to see if the summary is accurate. It looks like this hasn't been made anywhere near official so far.
https://x.com/LasVegasLocally/status...40409281450460
Vampire Druff needs to do a PFA radio show and cover these topics, no free roll.
i wouldnt worry about it tho, MAGA's A-team is on the case.
https://x.com/themouthmatusow/status...16552097554862
https://x.com/sheetspwns/status/1940266021883121690
Sheets has it correct. Many of the people clutching pearls are either losing gamblers, non-gamblers, or ones who blatantly lie to the IRS about their wins-losses anyway.
There's confusion about this law.
It does NOT limit your loss deduction to 90% of your winnings. That would be an absolute disaster, as everyone would be responsible for gambling taxes, even those who get absolutely destroyed by the casino.
Instead, it is essentially a reduction to your loss claim. So whatever you claim is a loss against your taxable winnings, you now have to multiply that number by 0.9 first.
So here's how it would work:
If you won $100k and lost $100k, your tax liability would be on $10k of gambling income, despite breaking even.
If you won $100k and lost $112k, your tax liability would be zero. That's because your claimed gambling income would be $100k - (0.9 * $112k), which equals less than zero.
If you won $900k and lost $800k, your tax liability would be on $180k worth of gambling income, despite only being up $100k. That's calculated by $900k - (0.9 * 800k).
From what I can tell, nothing else changes. Much of this is self-reported, especially poker cash game results.
The burden of proof is on the IRS, not you.
Finally, there's the matter of "sessions". The above does NOT apply to sessions, which are accounted for by strictly subtracting losses from wins.
For example, if I won $200k in a session but lost the $200k back in the same session, my session income would be 0, and this 90% loss reduction would not apply. So this would be entered into the records as a $0 win, and thus not affect taxes.
But what defines a session? The IRS isn't clear, and has never been clear. And that leaves a lot open to interpretation.
If you're on a gambling trip and win the first day but lose the second, how many sessions is that? One? Two? More?
If you go to dinner in the middle of gambling and take 3 hours, is it considered the same session when you resume?
What about online poker? If you remain logged in for the entire year, can you claim it's one long session? And if it's based upon logins, what if you're in the middle of playing and your computer crashes, and you restart it? Is that a new session, or a continuation of the old one? If you're sitting and waiting for opponents to sit with you heads up after a match is done, and finally one sits with you 6 hours later, is that a new session or the same session?
Without accurate definitions from the IRS, gamblers can rely upon broad definitions of "sessions" to somewhat neuter this new law (and do so legally).
Finally, there's the matter of audits.
Very few pro gamblers get audited. As you might imagine, I know a LOT of pro gamblers -- through poker, sportsbetting, and casino advantage play worlds. Of all those gamblers, very few have been audited due to their handling of their tax filings. Of those I know who did get audited, almost all of them were people who simply didn't file tax returns for a few years in a row, and the IRS eventually came knockin'. But among those who file taxes and voluntarily send money to the IRS that they weren't otherwise expecting to receive, they tend to get left alone.
This law could be difficult on tournament players, though. It's much easier for the IRS to claim that one tournament comprises a "session" (though there's a valid argument against that), and casinos keep meticulous records of tournament buyins versus cashes. Sportsbettors could also have an issue for this, especially if a "session" is thought to be a day's slate of games.
We will have to see what happens. It's possible the Big Beautiful Bill won't pass. It's possible this bill will get amendments in the House, and this law could be dropped or modified. It's also possible that the IRS will simply choose not to enforce this.
This isn't good, but it's not going to have the earthshattering impact that many on X are predicting.
There HAVE BEEN court rulings against claiming an entire year for a session. I'll see if I can dig them out. Some gamblers have been defining a 3 or 4 day gambling trip as a session for several years now and the IRS hasn't fired them up.
Yes, dig them up if you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
What's the longest "session" that has been upheld by the IRS?
By Kimberly Clark stock, another reason for Sonatine to try and find that little cock of his.
Guy lives for anything negative to give him a reason to not eat the 10th hot dog of the day.
Imagine going through life knowing there isn’t someone out there for you and this site is all he has left, along with 400 pounds of shit in him.
The precedent that is most relevant is here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us...t/1638039.html. Session appears 17 times in the opinion.
Unless the bill changes current law, the burden of proof is always with the taxpayer, not the IRS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYes, dig them up if you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
What's the longest "session" that has been upheld by the IRS?
i havent heard it mentioned specifically but im not sure how this wouldnt impact losses generated from day trading, meme coins, etc?
Just another reason to sit on your fat ass all day long.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Look in the mirror loser, do you like what you see?
Atleast Trump will build a wall. Oh wait, don't bother
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1UYFZrA8mTI
The nerve of these motherfuckers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVsdea78Csg
Never ever ever ever , no i mean never under any circumstances do you vote Republican.
No matter how bad it is under the Dems, the Republicans have you praying to return to the old problems.
Always!
Here's a quote from Park vs. CommissionerQuote:
Originally Posted by vpbobThe precedent that is most relevant is here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us...t/1638039.html. Session appears 17 times in the opinion.
Unless the bill changes current law, the burden of proof is always with the taxpayer, not the IRS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
"The IRS also cites Barba v. United States, a 1983 decision from the Claims Court. 2 Cl.Ct. 674 (1983). But Barba is not binding on us, and in any event, it merely ruled out a per-year approach to measuring taxable gambling winnings. The case did not consider whether to measure gains on a per-session basis or a per-bet basis and expressly left that question open. Id. at 678 (“there is no allegation that the losses were from the same transaction”)."
Burden of proof is mostly on IRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by vpbobThe precedent that is most relevant is here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us...t/1638039.html. Session appears 17 times in the opinion.
Unless the bill changes current law, the burden of proof is always with the taxpayer, not the IRS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Here’s a description. It’s complicated: https://www.lataxattorney.com/burden...itigation.html
The IRS only tends to come after gamblers who either don’t file or have an obvious underreporting situation going on.
They’re not going to chase after breakeven or losing players who don’t remit taxes on their nonexistent winnings.
Whole lotta copium going on.
I commend MAGA for doubling down on taxing this degenerate joke of a 'profession'.
Pay up faggots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
i cant wait to start a thread claiming trump is taxing people every time they rub hot sauce in their eyes and the retard nation is going to pour into the thread defending it as good for the economy and/or woke misinformation but their spelling will be all fucked up because they cant see their screens.
Here's what I don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Some of the loudest bitchers about this are high income winners who voted for Kamala Harris (and only Dems their entire adult life).
So it's okay if Democratic politicians increase their taxes, but not okay if Trump does?
Mind you, I don't support this law and think it sucks. But the pearl clutching by those who normally vote D is both hilarious and sad.
[x] NERVE TOUCHED
the overwhelming majority of people going insane over this are trumptards and so we are clear the people youre referring to are not bitching, we are gloating.
Good old whatabout cope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHere's what I don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Some of the loudest bitchers about this are high income winners who voted for Kamala Harris (and only Dems their entire adult life).
So it's okay if Democratic politicians increase their taxes, but not okay if Trump does?
Mind you, I don't support this law and think it sucks. But the pearl clutching by those who normally vote D is both hilarious and sad.
You would care more if you were ever winning stuff.
:lol2
they voted for a guy with a gold plated toilet and are shocked i say that hes picking their pockets
https://i.gifer.com/YLnd.gif
Meanwhile in NZ, gambling winnings are tax free.
but you also have retards doing the the hakka on every corner and its very corny at this point
Not sure who the "we" you're referring to is supposed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
You are presumably not affected by this, because from what you've said over the past years, you play just a little bit of recreational poker each year.
The lib pro players on X are definitely freaking the fuck out over this. If they were instead just laughing at Trump voters, I could at least respect that.
oh dang todge running an ocular pat down on twitter right now
The outrage nerds are very angry that I'm not taking the sky-is-falling line and demanding everyone call their Congressman.Quote:
Originally Posted by lol wow
Also...
https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1940598534329585824
BUT I am hearing rumors that Republicans might be able to get the votes together soon.
Here was my post on X about the law (before the recent development about the vote potentially failing):
---------
It is easy and lazy to post outrage bait about laws attacking gamblers. After all, who in the community would ever take up for the government there? Nobody.
I hate the new law in the recent bill. It makes no sense, is arbitrary, and is unfair.
I also hate a lot of other laws I see get passed, including new tax increases.
At the same time, it’s important to be realistic regarding the impact of such laws, and to think deeply about their true likely effect on individuals and the industry as a whole.
It serves no benefit to the industry to incite unnecessary panic by citing scare scenarios and worst case (albeit unrealistic) examples.
It is also important to examine the recent history of the IRS, and how often they’ve audited gamblers, especially recreational ones. Such audits are rare, aside from egregious violations such as not filing returns or severely understating earnings.
Additionally, it’s important to understand what this law is and isn’t. It only affects itemizers. It does NOT cap claimed losses. It is likely to only affect a small percentage of gamblers.
Yes, at the end of the day, some gamblers will pay more taxes due to this law, if it ultimately passes. That’s unfair, but it’s no worse to pro gamblers than a general tax increase.
There will also be legal ways to combat this, even if it does pass, such as defining a “session” in a fashion which benefits you most, while at the same time fitting into case-law-established logical parameters.
In short, this is an idiotic, arbitrary, and annoying tax increase on a small percentage of gamblers, but it’s not going to shatter the industry or end professional gambling as we know it.
Finally this law may not pass at all or may get amended, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
If you do feel you need to increase your clout, views, or popularity by posting outrage bait, go right ahead, but I’m not going to pretend the sky is falling because I see rain.
Can someone offer an explanation for this tax. Which lobby does this satisfy? What is the motivation?
As an aside:
Sports wagering dwarfs poker so there is that. Legalized sports wagering comes complete with very detailed paperwork and tax forms with just one push of the mouse button.
Prolly 96% of sports wagerers are losers so …. where is the revenue? Druff is correct that it affects only a small percentage of gamblers.
The Bill just doesn’t address serious national revenue concerns. This issue is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
I don't even understand its origins.
Seems extremely arbitrary.
It might have come from a place like, "Most pro gamblers are underreporting, so let's add 10% on top of their burden so it brings them closer to what they were supposed to be paying."
Anyway the bill passed 219-213 just now, so here we go.
The weird quiet is a the sound of a majority or small minority taking it up the ass without lube.
Losers, lubers, lubers. How embarrassing?
Losers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Hey everyone, it passed by six votes, none tainted.
Free thinkers. Of the people, for the people, blah blah blah.
Maybe it hasn’t passed yet. I’m confused. Well we will know soon.
In their nay votes on the big beautiful bill dems were de facto voting for the largest tax increase in history. So it is indeed disingenuous of leftards to be bitching about Trump raising a certain tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHere's what I don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Some of the loudest bitchers about this are high income winners who voted for Kamala Harris (and only Dems their entire adult life).
So it's okay if Democratic politicians increase their taxes, but not okay if Trump does?
Mind you, I don't support this law and think it sucks. But the pearl clutching by those who normally vote D is both hilarious and sad.
BTW, this reminds me of the time the WSOP almost got cancelled. It was back in the 90's. Just before the start of the WSOP the IRS told the Horseshoe they had to withhold 24% tax from the winners.
I think that up until that time the winners had been payed in cash and there was no W2-G.
So the players said fuck you we ain't playing. Probably because they seen they weren't going to get even a thin dime, the IRS rescinded the rule and instead told the Horseshoe they had to issue W2-G's for winnings higher than $600 or 300 times the buy-in, whichever was greater. Why they wrote it that way I don't know. It would have to be a $2 tournament for a $600 buy-in to be 300X.
I remember there were a lot of stupid poker room managers in those days that issued W2'G's in daily/weekly tournaments to anyone that had a win higher than $600. You couldn't explain to them about the 300X rule. They just didn't get it.
Anyways, as soon as the IRS rescinded the rule the players poured in and the WSOP was on.
If you are looking for the culprits that got this piece of work into the bill I think the sports betting industry should be the first to look at. It makes a lot of pro sports bettors go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffQuote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
I don't even understand its origins.
Seems extremely arbitrary.
It might have come from a place like, "Most pro gamblers are underreporting, so let's add 10% on top of their burden so it brings them closer to what they were supposed to be paying."