Just won a big one on Bovada slots, paranoid about tax crap now...

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: OnceDear

Welcome new member
TBH you just replied to a dormant post from 5 years back. I doubt the original poster will benefit from your wisdom. Especially since the OP was banned already.

You can try to be a little nicer to new members.(J/k)


Good old Neutrino(another WOV special person), he pissed me off with his blatant lies regarding his claims he hit one of those gaffed prog's from Bet Soft that were rigged not to hit. I was thinking if true(And I didnt really believe it) it was possible they were not resetting given the fact that I had been watching them. I suspicious they should have been hitting even before the scandal broke.

neutrino, that is a blast from the past. Forgot all about him.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: OnceDear

Welcome new member
TBH you just replied to a dormant post from 5 years back. I doubt the original poster will benefit from your wisdom. Especially since the OP was banned already.

Indeed, on page 2 of this thread every single poster has been banned except BBB and 100xOdds. 100xOdds should be nervous.

gulp...

Quote: GWAE

If you would like to not pay taxes then I would suggest losing it all back to them. problem solved.link to original post

I know this is an old thread, but people do read old threads (e.g., I just found it), so I wanted to point out that losing it all back doesn't work unless it's the same day. The IRS is clear that wins and losses must be tracked by session, and a session can't last more than a day. If he loses $10k the next day, he's got $10k in wins and $10k in losses, and since he'll be taking the Standard Deduction, he can't deduct the losses, so he'll still have $10k of gambling income. I explain the details in my article about gambling taxes. Yes, this isn't fair, gambling taxes are unfair for a whole host of reasons.

Quote: GWAE

I hate how people think taxes are so wrong yet they decide to live in this country. If you don't like the way it is run you always have the option of going somewhere else.link to original post

Saying "leave if you don't like it" isn't fair for at least a couple reasons. What if there are 99 things I like and 1 that I don't, I'm not allowed to complain about the one thing I don't? Second, the supposition is that there's some perfect country somewhere, but there isn't. Every country has its pros and cons.

However, during the second Gulf War I did specifically travel around the world in part because I was considering moving abroad so as to not help fund killing people, especially because at that time my taxes were a non-trivial amount. I didn't find anywhere that really suited me, and the war eventually wound down anyway.

necromancy

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: GWAE

If you would like to not pay taxes then I would suggest losing it all back to them. problem solved.link to original post

I know this is an old thread, but people do read old threads (e.g., I just found it), so I wanted to point out that losing it all back doesn't work unless it's the same day. The IRS is clear that wins and losses must be tracked by session, and a session can't last more than a day. If he loses $10k the next day, he's got $10k in wins and $10k in losses, and since he'll be taking the Standard Deduction, he can't deduct the losses, so he'll still have $10k of gambling income. I explain the details in my article about gambling taxes. Yes, this isn't fair, gambling taxes are unfair for a whole host of reasons.

Quote: GWAE

I hate how people think taxes are so wrong yet they decide to live in this country. If you don't like the way it is run you always have the option of going somewhere else.link to original post

Saying "leave if you don't like it" isn't fair for at least a couple reasons. What if there are 99 things I like and 1 that I don't, I'm not allowed to complain about the one thing I don't? Second, the supposition is that there's some perfect country somewhere, but there isn't. Every country has its pros and cons.

However, during the second Gulf War I did specifically travel around the world in part because I was considering moving abroad so as to not help fund killing people, especially because at that time my taxes were a non-trivial amount. I didn't find anywhere that really suited me, and the war eventually wound down anyway.
link to original post

A guy won $500,000 in a Casino and blew it all back the same day, didn't leave the Casino with any of the money. I remember asking something like, "Does the guy STILL have to pay taxes money that he LOST? It would be incredibly messed up to have to pay taxes for money that was LOST. 😱😳

Someone responded"He would STILL have the pay taxes on that $500,000 as at one point it was money he had even though he did did lose it all the same day and didn't leave with any of it. The guy's best hope is that he can use the lost $500,000 to offset his gambling losses." 💡

Quote: Nathan

A guy won $500,000 in a Casino and blew it all back the same day, didn't leave the Casino with any of the money. I remember asking something like, "Does the guy STILL have to pay taxes money that he LOST? It would be incredibly messed up to have to pay taxes for money that was LOST. 😱😳

Someone responded"He would STILL have the pay taxes on that $500,000 as at one point it was money he had even though he did did lose it all the same day and didn't leave with any of it. The guy's best hope is that he can use the lost $500,000 to offset his gambling losses." 💡
link to original post

This is one of the reasons I wrote my tax article, because there's so misinformation floating around, people pull stuff like that out of their a$$ and declare it as fact. The truth is you're not taxed on your high point, you're taxed on your session wins. The IRS doesn't define what constitutes a session (other than to say that a whole year is NOT a session), so one CPA suggests a new session starts when you switch kind of game (e.g. slots > blackjack), switch casinos, or a new day starts. Based on that, losing the $500k on the same game on the same day would be the same session.

Now, what if he took the $500k slot win and lost it on blackjack? That would be a new session from the above definition, but remember, it's not the IRS' definition, they don't have one. If I were the one who won and then lost $500k on different games, I'd have a strong incentive to count the play on the different games as a single session, and I would. If the IRS challenged it, it would go to court, and then at least we might finally get a precedent as to exactly what constitutes a session.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: Nathan

A guy won $500,000 in a Casino and blew it all back the same day, didn't leave the Casino with any of the money. I remember asking something like, "Does the guy STILL have to pay taxes money that he LOST? It would be incredibly messed up to have to pay taxes for money that was LOST. 😱😳

Someone responded"He would STILL have the pay taxes on that $500,000 as at one point it was money he had even though he did did lose it all the same day and didn't leave with any of it. The guy's best hope is that he can use the lost $500,000 to offset his gambling losses." 💡
link to original post

This is one of the reasons I wrote my tax article, because there's so misinformation floating around, people pull stuff like that out of their a$$ and declare it as fact. The truth is you're not taxed on your high point, you're taxed on your session wins. The IRS doesn't define what constitutes a session (other than to say that a whole year is NOT a session), so one CPA suggests a new session starts when you switch kind of game (e.g. slots > blackjack), switch casinos, or a new day starts. Based on that, losing the $500k on the same game on the same day would be the same session.

Now, what if he took the $500k slot win and lost it on blackjack? That would be a new session from the above definition, but remember, it's not the IRS' definition, they don't have one. If I were the one who won and then lost $500k on different games, I'd have a strong incentive to count the play on the different games as a single session, and I would. If the IRS challenged it, it would go to court, and then at least we might finally get a precedent as to exactly what constitutes a session.
link to original post

You can forget about getting fair treatment from government authorities for anything having to do with gambling.

For it is SIN! And people have this weird thing going on, where they believe they can exculpate their own sin by calling out and punishing the sins of others. We were warned of the dangers of this in the Bible (my Bible, with the Gospels): do not judge and do not condemn. So you have some politician who has sexually importuned every female in his orbit that is under 30 years and 150 pounds, stuffs money into his pockets from everybody who wants government business, and he thinks he's going to Heaven for taxing, penalizing, and railing against the drinkers, smokers, gamblers, potsmokers, pornwankers, meateaters, wrongthinkers- whatever is en vogue to judge and condemn in his time and place. They're never going to give that up, and the worse they are the more they feel they need to do it.

This is why I try to consciously commit some crime (that does not cause suffering to any being) every day, as a daily reminder to myself that I don't need to condemn things to be forgiven, I need to forgive things to be forgiven. Crime makes me a better man!

Thus, I do not recommend anyone be a hero and be the test case for IRS rules relating to gambling. They've already made up their minds that you need to be punished. Fly low, keep your head down, report as little as you have to and avoid reportable or noticeable things. In general if it involves filling out or signing a form, try to stay away from it.

A sin? It's possible a hangover from puritanical origins. But mostly everyone and everybody has decided they want a piece of you if you are a gambler

Tax reform is often driven by lobbyists, who often dictate the changes they want. Until gamblers get some paid representation in DC, they can expect to get screwed along with the rest of the voiceless.

If some slot influencer loses $20K but racks up $30K in hand pays along the way and in the same session comes back on a winning streak and cashes out $5K down but collected $50K in additional hand pays. They now have $80K in hand pays and a session loss of $5K. I guess they could write that down as an $85K session loss against $80K in W-2G wins.

If they cashed out following the $20K loss and came back another day and had the same luck to cash-out at $5K down between the two sessions; they'd have a first session that had a loss of $50K against $30K in W-2G's, and a second session of $35K losses against $50K in W-2G's. The total between them is the same: $85K in losses against $80K in W-2G's.

This is intended to make the standard deduction a moot point since this is a slot influencer who has too many W-2G's to count without an accountant.

Quote: odiousgambit

A sin? It's possible a hangover from puritanical origins. But mostly everyone and everybody gas decided they want a piece of you if you are a gambler
link to original post

That's the real reason, of course. But it does date back to the social politics of literal Puritans and the unwillingness to say, of vice or anything or anyone deemed undesirable, "That goes too far." Or else you get the fingers of suspicion pointed at you by others who depend on this system to work their way up or stay at the top of the totem pole. So somebody says "She's a witch!" and if you say "Wait, no, there's no evidence of that, nor that the practice of witchcraft does anything at all" you're going to be the next one accused of being a witch.

We did the same thing with Prohibition, and in many places it was difficult to find even one politician who says "Wait, we can tax it, regulate it, educate on the dangers of it, but banning alcohol outright goes too far" or else his political opposition is going to say "Aha! I knew it! You're a secret DRUNK, aren't you? Prove a negative, prove you're not a drunk!"

Likewise anyone who says any tax or policy on gambling is excessive and unreasonable is going to get "I see you care more about gamblers than the children" and everybody is going to pile on.