IRS suggests dropping casino winnings threshold to $600
Quote: DRichPeople seem to forget that after every single day that you are up one cent gambling you are required to report that. Granted nobody does, but they are definitely supposed to.
To me, THAT is the issue.
Where is the wisdom in making a law/regulation that will have close to zero people following it ?
Doesn't that have the unintended consequence of watering down other regulations ?
I would also suspect that a savvy programmer would simply modify the paytables of VP to have a $ 599 max jackpot while keeping approx 99.5 % perfect payback, which seems to be accepted as a "good" game, ie 9/6 Jacks or Better.
Quote: sc15how is $500 liberal?
I win/lose 50K in< 2 hours all the time.
It's liberal for the vast majority of Missouri players. I would say many players in a Missouri casino have no business losing $500 in 2 hours or less, especially since a good number of them are there a LOT anyway. My mom usually gave a $200 weekly donation for years... And like I said, repealing the law in 2009 didn't increase revenue. The state doesn't depend on high rollers that much.
Just because winning/losing $500 in a single play should mean nothing to you, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for others. And hell, my mother told me stories of people driving to the next casino (2 in particular are only 10 minutes apart) to lose another $500. That was an option to skirt the law back then.
I expect the whole forum will disagree with me on this issue, but I thought the "loss limit" was a decent attempt to help prevent the "typical" Missouri casino patron from gambling beyond their means.
Quote: JohnnyQ
I would also suspect that a savvy programmer would simply modify the paytables of VP to have a $ 599 max jackpot while keeping approx 99.5 % perfect payback, which seems to be accepted as a "good" game, ie 9/6 Jacks or Better.
The way casinos are going, they would just shave quads to 119 credits and offer the "new and improved" 99.26% JoB.
The IRS gets many reports of cash transactions in excess of $10,000 involving banks, casinos, car dealers and other businesses, plus suspicious-activity reports from banks and disclosures of foreign accounts. So if you make large cash purchases or deposits, be prepared for IRS scrutiny. Also, be aware that banks and other institutions file reports on suspicious activities that appear to avoid the currency transaction rules (such as persons depositing $9,500 in cash one day and an additional $9,500 in cash two days later).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-irs-audit-red-flags-151032462.html
Am I mistaken in suggesting that some gentlemen would bring their significant others to the MO casinos as a roundabout attempt to be able to wager (and possibly lose) another $500 by coaching said SO on what to do? I don't know how common it was, but I certainly remember seeing it happen at least once. He tapped out on BJ and his wife came in and started playing at his direction.
Quote: zoobrewI always wondered if the IRS got copies of the $10,000 cash transaction reports and this article implies that sometimes they do.
The IRS gets many reports of cash transactions in excess of $10,000 involving banks, casinos, car dealers and other businesses, plus suspicious-activity reports from banks and disclosures of foreign accounts. So if you make large cash purchases or deposits, be prepared for IRS scrutiny. Also, be aware that banks and other institutions file reports on suspicious activities that appear to avoid the currency transaction rules (such as persons depositing $9,500 in cash one day and an additional $9,500 in cash two days later).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-irs-audit-red-flags-151032462.html
Casino CTRs are nothing to worry about.
Structuring to avoid those CTRs, and being caught doing so, will almost certainly result in problems for you though.
Quote: Mission146Tring,
Am I mistaken in suggesting that some gentlemen would bring their significant others to the MO casinos as a roundabout attempt to be able to wager (and possibly lose) another $500 by coaching said SO on what to do? I don't know how common it was, but I certainly remember seeing it happen at least once. He tapped out on BJ and his wife came in and started playing at his direction.
I never saw that myself as I play table games sporadically, but it wouldn't have shocked me if it occasionally happened. If the SO is buying in with the cash, the casino is doing their part.
The one game where the law really screwed things up was live poker when "capped" no-limit came about. Nothing existed above 1/2 NL really. So I definitely admit it was far from perfect. Hopefully it did some good for some people though.
If you were audited for some other reason, such as business deductions, and they also looked at gambling wins/losses, this would not apply.
I am interested in knowing if anyone has ever been audited just for their gambling or for their gambling as the primary reason?
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuestion: has ANYONE PERSONALLY been audited by the IRS specifically for gaming wins/losses?
If you were audited for some other reason, such as business deductions, and they also looked at gambling wins/losses, this would not apply.
I am interested in knowing if anyone has ever been audited just for their gambling or for their gambling as the primary reason?
In a general sense, Baccaratfrom79 was audited by the IRS when he forgot to report his W-2G on his taxes. However, I am guessing you mean a full blown audit and not just a missing document report that the IRS sends out by the tens of thousands.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuestion: has ANYONE PERSONALLY been audited by the IRS specifically for gaming wins/losses?
If you were audited for some other reason, such as business deductions, and they also looked at gambling wins/losses, this would not apply.
I am interested in knowing if anyone has ever been audited just for their gambling or for their gambling as the primary reason?
I'm not an IRS enforcement agent. But as a business owner I've dealt with them a lot. My experience is they don't audit you for any specific reason. When you get a full audit they look at everything. Now your audit may have been triggered by something "out of line" on your return. Certainly a large number on the gambling win/loss line of your section A might trigger it. But I doubt very much they would tell you that, at least not up front. This is different than getting the standard "you've made an error on your return" and we are fixing it for you letter. These go out buy the thousands if not millions. Those letters will site a specific issue and offer a remedy. You can agree with that or appeal their decision. That's not an audit. So I doubt anyone has been audited "specifically" for gaming win/loss. At least not that the IRS will admit. A taxpayer might find out as part of the audit, that their gaming numbers were part of, or the whole reason for the audit. But even that is unlikely I think. Once the IRS starts the audit process they are turning over all the rocks they can.
Quote: sc15Casino CTRs are nothing to worry about.
Structuring to avoid those CTRs, and being caught doing so, will almost certainly result in problems for you though.
+1
CTR's are not sent to IRS unless something suspicious is suspected.
Quote: zoobrewIn a general sense, Baccaratfrom79 was audited by the IRS when he forgot to report his W-2G on his taxes. However, I am guessing you mean a full blown audit and not just a missing document report that the IRS sends out by the tens of thousands.
That is similar to my situation. I received a letter audit one year because my tax return was missing some W2G's that were reported. The letter I received asked me for an explanation on why I didn't report some of the W2G's and stated that according to their calculations I owed about $30k more. It took a few months and many letters going back and forth but I was able to clear everything up and only ended up paying about $900 extra. The whole process was very simple and straight forward. I was surprised that I was able to handle it all without involving an attorney and an accountant.
Quote: onenickelmiracleJust call him massa Sam and pay taxes on your LosseS. Table games xla be next if this merde comes through. I want to say it won't but some portion will fly. Americans waste too much on bad games so having the government scare them to not gamble would be a good thing.
Agreed, five cent.
I don't believe it is about the possible extra collection to "the man" as much as it is about "control".
Changing this will cost more than they collect.
But, someone has to pay for the trillions laying untaxed in the Cayman island sanctuary for the uber wealthy.
Similar to the "security molestor's" at the airport, for two hundred bucks and a few more questions one time, you can avoid waiting in line and having to remove your diaper. And somehow, it doesn't make me feel safer. That isn't about safety, it's about control. As is the paradox of why there are seat belts in cars and not on school busses, or why motorcyclist's can ride without helmets.
It's not about, what they say it is, but no one is paying attention, uh oh, which way did KK color her hair?
Bread and circuses
HINT : Look in the mirror
Their situation prevents them from taking itemized deductions.
Now they get screwed on their ObamaCare assistance because they have too much reported income....
Quote: BTLWITheir situation prevents them from taking itemized deductions.
Please explain.
Last I checked, anyone may file a 1040 + Schedule A. Nobody has to do a 1040EZ.
Quote: DieterLast I checked, anyone may file a 1040 + Schedule A. Nobody has to do a 1040EZ.
You still have to have the expenses to deduct. For example, I have a very low mortgage payment now and it is touch and go with me whether I will have enough expenses. People have dug up data showing maybe 40% at most take itemized deductions and I bet in most cases that is because they can't.
The Obamacare thing kicks in because of AGI - there are rules attached to your total income before you take deductions and I can believe this is one of them
Quote: odiousgambitYou still have to have the expenses to deduct. For example, I have a very low mortgage payment now and it is touch and go with me whether I will have enough expenses. People have dug up data showing maybe 40% at most take itemized deductions and I bet in most cases that is because they can't.
If you have a documented net loss of greater than your $7500 reported win, isn't that deductible? And isn't it preferable to the $6200 standard deduction, especially since many of the itemized deductions apply too?
I guess it's just another marriage penalty, vs the married standard deduction.
Sucks on the ACA MAGI, though. Then again, if you're making that little, why are you gambling so much?
Quote: DieterIf you have a documented net loss of greater than your $7500 reported win, isn't that deductible? And isn't it preferable to the $6200 standard deduction, especially since many of the itemized deductions apply too?
Something tells me there is nothing to gain by launching yourself into deductibility with gambling wins even if then 100% written off. Wouldn't we all have fake gambling wins we report, then show losses to? Even legit ones, like winning $1000 at Craps then losing it at slots ... that really happens all the time. It is not required that you have a W-2g.
This scenario conjures up images of getting an audit. Trying to outsmart us eh? Pay the price.
[But I don't have the facts, pondering it is giving me a headache LOL]
Quote: odiousgambitWouldn't we all have fake gambling wins we report, then show losses to?
I don't think there's an advantage to doing so, since losses are only deductible up to the win amount.
There is an advantage to offsetting a W2G win. I don't see any advantage to reporting non-W2G wins just to zero them out with losses.
Quote: DieterI don't think there's an advantage to doing so, since losses are only deductible up to the win amount.
I should have made it clear that the real* but don't-have-to-report complementing win/losses would be considered if otherwise the standard deduction would apply, as possibly worth doing [not sure]
*forget that bit about fake wins/losses, a bad idea for sure
Quote: DieterI don't think there's an advantage to doing so, since losses are only deductible up to the win amount.
There is an advantage to offsetting a W2G win. I don't see any advantage to reporting non-W2G wins just to zero them out with losses.
I think what he was saying is that we all have winning days. Say on Monday I will 1k and on Tuesday I lose 1k. Even though there was no w2g technically in should be claiming a 1k win as income and a 1k loss on the schedule a or whatever the for is. Now even though I was even for the 2 days my agi goes up by 1k and I am taxed at the higher amount. Since I use standard deduction I am now paying $250 in taxes plus there is a chance it could put me over the threshold for Obama care if I had that insurance. So overall I am even gambling but I pay taxes and lose my Obama care help.
Quote: DieterIf you have a documented net loss of greater than your $7500 reported win, isn't that deductible? And isn't it preferable to the $6200 standard deduction, especially since many of the itemized deductions apply too?
I guess it's just another marriage penalty, vs the married standard deduction.
Sucks on the ACA MAGI, though. Then again, if you're making that little, why are you gambling so much?
Just because you have a w2g does not mean your gambling to much. You could walk in with $100 and win 1200. Then over the course of the year you lose all 1200 so you only lost $100 for the year. Even us poor people have an entertainment budget of a few dollars.
If you have enough to get over the standard deduction, you will still pay more taxes than if you didn't have the w2gs
Quote: GWAEJust because you have a w2g does not mean your gambling to much. You could walk in with $100 and win 1200.
As I understood, the original hypothetical situation was that a player won $7500 (reported on one or more W2Gs), and then lost it all (and probably a little more), and then felt it wasn't beneficial to claim the gambling losses.
I don't understand how that's the case.
Quote: DieterAs I understood, the original hypothetical situation was that a player won $7500 (reported on one or more W2Gs), and then lost it all (and probably a little more), and then felt it wasn't beneficial to claim the gambling losses.
I don't understand how that's the case.
I retired married couple (over 65), would have a standard deduction of $14,800 and most likely no mortgage interest, state/local income tax and many times reduced property taxes, so it would be hard for them to find non gambling deductions of $7,300 just to equal their standard deduction.
Fortunately from my quick read, the 65 year old couple is safe - they're under Medicare, and not getting ACA Marketplace subsidies.
Makes a big difference for Medicare Parts C and D.Quote: zoobrewBut the 65 year couple has to worry that their gambling "income" will bump their AGI and now make their social security payments taxable.
Quote: KeyserIt has been said, that taxes on gambling and cigarettes is a tax on the ignorant and poor.
I do both and I is smart!
Hmm...I wonder how many people would play if that were to actually occur - complicating a tax collection system that is already too complicated for most people...maybe it's not such a good idea.
I have a friend who's wife is a fairly big slot player and usually has between 100-200K in W2G's. They moved states a couple of years back and were looking forward leaving one of these states only to discover that the new stare didn't allow offsetting deductions either.
Quote: ukaserexI know this thread is old - but I'm just seeing it now - and I honestly wish the machines would only work with a players card. It would make my logging of win/loss statements more credible, wouldn't it? Without having to notate the specific machine, time of day, etc. The win/loss report would be sufficient - and w-2g's could become obsolete. A casino would simply file ALL win/loss statements with the IRS.
Hmm...I wonder how many people would play if that were to actually occur - complicating a tax collection system that is already too complicated for most people...maybe it's not such a good idea.
Missouri had this in their laws for a long time (that you must have a player's card inserted to play). There were also caps on buy-ins/some hour period. I know they dropped the caps a few years ago; not sure about requiring player's cards, but I bet there are several on here that know for sure.
Quote: WingnutWhat I find much more troublesome is that there are states that will not let taxpayers post losses against wins to lower their tax base but force them to pay taxes on their W2G,s alone. I don't know how many of the states don't allow offsetting losses but know of at least 2.
I have a friend who's wife is a fairly big slot player and usually has between 100-200K in W2G's. They moved states a couple of years back and were looking forward leaving one of these states only to discover that the new stare didn't allow offsetting deductions either.
Which 2 states do you know of, please? And does anyone else know what others do this? I know Florida doesn't have any state income taxes, along with Nevada, Washington State, and a fourth state I can't recall.
Quote: beachbumbabsMissouri had this in their laws for a long time (that you must have a player's card inserted to play). There were also caps on buy-ins/some hour period. I know they dropped the caps a few years ago; not sure about requiring player's cards, but I bet there are several on here that know for sure.
Players cards are not necessary in Missouri any longer.
I've moved so it doesn't effect me now, but when I was in IN I tried to get some legislative action on it. It was ripe because OH had just allowed for casinos AND changed their tax code to reflect that.
It is of course completely unfair, but with dwindling budgets it's near impossible to find legislators that will agree to amend it.
Alaska.Quote: beachbumbabs...<SNIP>...I know Florida doesn't have any state income taxes, along with Nevada, Washington State, and a fourth state I can't recall.
Florida.
Nevada.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Washington.
Wyoming.
I assure you, we make it up in property taxes.
I believe Florida taxes intangibles, and you can add Tennessee and New Hampshire that only tax investments, not dem dam Gamblin winnins....Quote: DrawingDeadAlaska.Quote: beachbumbabs...<SNIP>...I know Florida doesn't have any state income taxes, along with Nevada, Washington State, and a fourth state I can't recall.
Florida.
Nevada.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Washington.
Wyoming.
Quote: DrawingDeaddoesn't have any state income taxes
Isn't Tennessee in there? Was considering retirement to Nashville area.
[Sorry, redundant. Still celebrating the Jones for Johansen trade]
Quote: DrawingDeadAlaska.Quote: beachbumbabs...<SNIP>...I know Florida doesn't have any state income taxes, along with Nevada, Washington State, and a fourth state I can't recall.
Florida.
Nevada.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Washington.
Wyoming.
Thanks. SD was the one I couldn't recall, though I lived there long enough to file taxes several times. Didn't know about TX, WY.
Yes, up until about 10 years ago, the State of Florida did impose an Intangibles Tax on stocks, bonds, & mutual funds owned by an individual (not on any profits, but on the market value at the end of the year).Quote: TwoFeathersATLI believe Florida taxes intangibles
However, FL repealed their Intangibles Tax in 2007.
I've seen several times where players get frustrated at the tax once they hit a big win, as well as the paperwork fuckery and the waste of time. They direct their anger towards the casino in every situation that I've seen it.
For Trump, someone who owns casinos, in my opinion he might even completely get rid of the gambling taxes that are hurting the casinos and pissing off the customers for the fed's benefits.
Quote: NeutrinoIf Trump wins the election taxes like this and also other gambling taxes in general would be less, right?
I've seen several times where players get frustrated at the tax once they hit a big win, as well as the paperwork fuckery and the waste of time. They direct their anger towards the casino in every situation that I've seen it.
For Trump, someone who owns casinos, in my opinion he might even completely get rid of the gambling taxes that are hurting the casinos and pissing off the customers for the fed's benefits.
You know i never thought about this angle. In terms of candidates which are the best for cutting taxes, as well as making w2g thresholds higher?
