So the Big Beautiful Bill just effectively ended gambling in America for anyome professional/profitable, but everyone here seems weirdly quie-

[sonatine]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



lol

lmao.

[lol wow]

BRO MEAN

[lol wow]

like you didnt have to do the - jesus christ tine

[VaughnP]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.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.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/LasVegasLocally/status/1940140409281450460

[desertrunner]

Vampire Druff needs to do a PFA radio show and cover these topics, no free roll.

[sonatine]

i wouldnt worry about it tho, MAGA's A-team is on the case.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/themouthmatusow/status/1940216552097554862

[Dan Druff]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.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.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

What's the longest "session" that has been upheld by the IRS?

[sonatine]

[The Boz]

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.

[vpbob]

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.

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.

What's the longest "session" that has been upheld by the IRS?

[sonatine]

i havent heard it mentioned specifically but im not sure how this wouldnt impact losses generated from day trading, meme coins, etc?

[The Boz]

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.

Look in the mirror loser, do you like what you see?

[Orko]

Atleast Trump will build a wall. Oh wait, don't bother



The nerve of these motherfuckers.



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!

[mickeycrimm]

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.

Yes, dig them up if you can.

What's the longest "session" that has been upheld by the IRS?

Here's a quote from Park vs. Commissioner

"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”)."

[Dan Druff]

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.

Yes, dig them up if you can.

What's the longest "session" that has been upheld by the IRS?

Burden of proof is mostly on IRS.

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.

[Sloppy Joe]

Whole lotta copium going on.

I commend MAGA for doubling down on taxing this degenerate joke of a 'profession'.

Pay up faggots

[sonatine]

Whole lotta copium going on.

I commend MAGA for doubling down on taxing this degenerate joke of a 'profession'.

Pay up faggots

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.

[Dan Druff]

Whole lotta copium going on.

I commend MAGA for doubling down on taxing this degenerate joke of a 'profession'.

Pay up faggots

Here's what I don't understand.

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.