darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
Thanks for this post from:
bobbartop
August 24th, 2019 at 5:45:36 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Assuming Ivey has a contract with a backer in any poker tournaments he plays going forward can we assume they can only go after and confiscate Ivey's personal earnings?



I doubt it.

I know if you have a shared bank account they can attach that. The additional name on the account does not make it safe. It sucka for the other person.

There was a famous science fiction writer who owed tons to the IRS. They made an arrangement that all future book proceeds would be garnished but any books co-written would not be attached. It was specified in the deal. So clearly there must be some written exemption if finances are shared under garnishment.

BTW, that sci-fi writer wrote an additional dozen or so books AND every single one was co-written. I am certain the IRS would never enter a similar arrangement again.

EDIT: It was Fred Saberhagen
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2419
August 24th, 2019 at 6:10:11 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Assuming Ivey has a contract with a backer in any poker tournaments he plays going forward can we assume they can only go after and confiscate Ivey's personal earnings?



No. From the government’s perspective the backer is just another creditors of Ivy’s and the garnishment is first in line.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 2542
August 24th, 2019 at 7:11:54 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz



BTW, that sci-fi writer wrote an additional dozen or so books AND every single one was co-written. I am certain the IRS would never enter a similar arrangement again.




So true.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19171
August 24th, 2019 at 8:10:08 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

No. From the government’s perspective the backer is just another creditors of Ivy’s and the garnishment is first in line.

So if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?

I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19171
August 24th, 2019 at 8:12:47 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

I doubt it.

I know if you have a shared bank account they can attach that. The additional name on the account does not make it safe. It sucka for the other person.

There was a famous science fiction writer who owed tons to the IRS. They made an arrangement that all future book proceeds would be garnished but any books co-written would not be attached. It was specified in the deal. So clearly there must be some written exemption if finances are shared under garnishment.

BTW, that sci-fi writer wrote an additional dozen or so books AND every single one was co-written. I am certain the IRS would never enter a similar arrangement again.

EDIT: It was Fred Saberhagen

I didn't know the IRS was involved.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
August 24th, 2019 at 8:49:41 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

I didn't know the IRS was involved.



The IRS isnt involved.

Im just using that instance of an example.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
August 24th, 2019 at 8:54:44 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

So if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?

I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.



That is different because the money is going to the company and they cut you a check for 10%. when he wins a tourney they pay him everything and he divies out the money.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
August 24th, 2019 at 8:55:06 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

So if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?

I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.



Im certain it works to whether the garnished person is listed in a fiduciary way.

An employee is not listed on the company's bank account as being financially connected. Even if he works on commission he doesn't have access to the company account. So only his paycheck would be garnished.

Since Ivey would be entering tourneys and being awarded the winning amounts I could see him as being financially connected to the entire win. And therefore it would be subject to the garnishment
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2419
August 25th, 2019 at 1:02:33 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

So if you're a Salesman working for a company making 10% Commission are you telling me they can confiscate all the money from the sale and not just the 10% Commission?

I'm sure there would be many poker sites and other companies willing to buy him in to tournaments were they take all the losses and winnings and pay him a fee.



No. I’m not telling you that. It’s the company's revenue. Borgata could not garnish the 100% in that circumstance. That’s a (legally) different situation than Ivy playing poker with backers.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
August 25th, 2019 at 2:52:32 AM permalink
Also if I’m not mistaken, WSOP won’t do a split payout. I think Druff was saying if there’s an opportunity to chop, you’d need to trust the other person for that reason. If WSOP (or whatever tournament) will do a split pay, then I would at least think there’d be a better possibility of Borgata not being able to go after Ivey’s “winnings” (winnings being the % that goes to backers).

  • Jump to: