Poll
2 votes (5.4%) | |||
3 votes (8.1%) | |||
4 votes (10.81%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
2 votes (5.4%) | |||
23 votes (62.16%) | |||
4 votes (10.81%) | |||
6 votes (16.21%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
2 votes (5.4%) |
37 members have voted
Quote: JohnnyQSimple would be better.
+ 1199 599 ;)
This is the correct answer to just about any question about the IRS or the Tax Code! Unfortunately, the only thing that ever happens to the Tax Code is that it gets more complicated.
Quote: Ahighhttps://gallery.mailchimp.com/03373c05c46b5e9a6eb445537/files/REG_132253_11.pdf
Make sure you read all of these examples and understand them all.
"Example 2. Between 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. on the same day, B places five wagers of $20 each at casino Q on slot machine play that is not electronically tracked. B wins a total of $1,600 during that period of time as follows: an $800 win on the first play, no win on the second play, no win on the third play, a $600 win on the fourth play, and a $200 win on the fifth play. Under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section, winnings from slot machine play that is not electronically tracked are not combined to determine whether the reporting threshold is satisfied. Therefore, none of B’s winnings is a reportable gambling winning and Q is not required to report winnings from slot machine play that it pays to B. "
Reposting my reply, I was fuming at the document and screwed it up
B is the player. Q is the casino. B *does* have to report these winnings on his tax return [is supposed to] unless he loses it later. Q does not have to report these items because, as we can see from example 3*, they are for some mysterious reason still using the $1200 threshold! Why in the @%$%^$#^$%^ are they using a $1200 threshold when we are talking about a $600 threshold? Son of a $#%$^%$!!!!!!!
My initial conclusion is that, for some reason, this is an exercise in studying the old rules. THE OLD RULES !!! I'll try to calm down while somebody a lot brighter than me tells me where I am wrong.
During one session at casino R, C places two $20 wagers on one electronically tracked slot machine and three $20 wagers on a different electronically tracked slot machine. The first four wagers result in no wins. The fifth wager results in a win of $2,000. C makes no further wagers on any games at R during the same session. C's combined winnings for the session ($2,000) reduced by C's combined wagers for the session ($100) is $1,900, which is over the $1,200 threshold described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section. In addition, C had one win in the same session of $1,200 or more ($2,000 win). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section, R paid reportable gambling winnings with respect to electronically tracked slot machine play of $1,900. Accordingly, R must report the winnings of $1,900 that it paid to C.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2015-0006-0001
It is still $1200....once they slide this by, they can change it to $600 without asking for comments again, since they have already done that...
Quote: RonC"However, advances in technology in the nearly four decades since the existing rules were adopted may overcome the compliance concerns that prompted the higher reporting thresholds and may warrant reducing the thresholds for bingo, keno, and slots to $600, consistent with other information reporting thresholds under § 6041(a). Accordingly, the IRS and Treasury will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the existing (and proposed) reporting thresholds, and may propose to reduce those thresholds at a future time. Comments are specifically requested regarding the proposed reporting thresholds, including the feasibility of reducing those thresholds to $600 at a future time, whether electronically tracked slot machine play should have a separate reporting threshold, and whether the amounts should be uniform for bingo, keno, and slot machine play."
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2015-0006-0001
It is still $1200....once they slide this by, they can change it to $600 without asking for comments again, since they have already done that...
I like how they don't explain this in plain English like you just did. Naturally, the reader assumes he is looking at the 'new rules if changed'. If the explanation you just gave is in there in any kind of English, I missed it. It confused the hell out of Ahigh - although I am risking his wrath saying that - in my opinion it did.
Here's another link for this discussion.
I should point at that I sent a VERY pointed note to Marcus Prater and it was forwarded to the AGA.
I am absolutely on the PLAYER'S side with this issue. I believe that Michael Shackleford is too.
But until the proposals are WELL UNDERSTOOD, there is no point arguing falsehoods that result from a lack of understanding.
This forum does get read. And the players should make their voices heard.
Every time I am in a room full of people representing the casinos or the manufacturers, any time that someone mentions the player, there is often a comment that, effectively, boils down to "F the player!"
I take issue with that. And trust me it's there. "God bless 'em" is the kindest way I have heard expressed, but trust and know that I have heard much more rude things said about the "demographic" of players that play machines and fail to understand things.
Quote: zoobrewThis post show a lack of tax code or demographical knowledge. For over 50% of taxpayers a W2G would generate additional taxes, even if they are net losers, because they are using some of their standard deduction to cover their W2G instead of using it lower their AGI. The 50% figures comes from the number of taxpayers who don't itemize and if you analyze the demographics of itemizers and slot players the 50% is actually very much too low, for example only 33% of taxpayers making between 40-50k itemize and the rates are even much lower for lower income taxpayers. Also while I can't find the data, I would bet that a home mortgage is one of the main drivers of itemization and I would also bet that the average slot player is less likely to have mortgage, largely due to age factors.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/higher-income-taxpayers-are-most-likely-claim-itemized-deductions
I definitely lack knowledge in taxes, and you have made a 100% correct assertion in a very impersonal way.
Kudos to you!
Your post demonstrated a lack of personal skills, FWIW.
70% of tax payers don't itemize. With mortgage rates so low, many underestimate the number of home owners who no longer itemize. Depending on your real estate tax rate, with a 4% mortgage you need to have a balance of $200k or so to justify it from your interest and real estate deductions alone. It may come as a shock to folks on the east and west coasts, but that leaves out most of us in the middle of the country that have substantial home equity.Quote: zoobrewThis post show a lack of tax code or demographical knowledge. For over 50% of taxpayers a W2G would generate additional taxes, even if they are net losers, because they are using some of their standard deduction to cover their W2G instead of using it lower their AGI. The 50% figures comes from the number of taxpayers who don't itemize and if you analyze the demographics of itemizers and slot players the 50% is actually very much too low, for example only 33% of taxpayers making between 40-50k itemize and the rates are even much lower for lower income taxpayers. Also while I can't find the data, I would bet that a home mortgage is one of the main drivers of itemization and I would also bet that the average slot player is less likely to have mortgage, largely due to age factors.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/higher-income-taxpayers-are-most-likely-claim-itemized-deductions
Quote: Ahighhttps://gallery.mailchimp.com/03373c05c46b5e9a6eb445537/files/REG_132253_11.pdf
Make sure you read all of these examples and understand them all.
"Example 2. Between 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. on the same day, B places five wagers of $20 each at casino Q on slot machine play that is not electronically tracked. B wins a total of $1,600 during that period of time as follows: an $800 win on the first play, no win on the second play, no win on the third play, a $600 win on the fourth play, and a $200 win on the fifth play. Under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section, winnings from slot machine play that is not electronically tracked are not combined to determine whether the reporting threshold is satisfied. Therefore, none of B’s winnings is a reportable gambling winning and Q is not required to report winnings from slot machine play that it pays to B. "
Reposting my reply, I was fuming at the document and screwed it up
B is the player. Q is the casino. B *does* have to report these winnings on his tax return [is supposed to] unless he loses it later. Q does not have to report these items because, as we can see from example 3*, they are for some mysterious reason still using the $1200 threshold! Why in the @%$%^$#^$%^ are they using a $1200 threshold when we are talking about a $600 threshold? Son of a $#%$^%$!!!!!!!
My initial conclusion is that, for some reason, this is an exercise in studying the old rules. THE OLD RULES !!! I'll try to calm down while somebody a lot brighter than me tells me where I am wrong.
During one session at casino R, C places two $20 wagers on one electronically tracked slot machine and three $20 wagers on a different electronically tracked slot machine. The first four wagers result in no wins. The fifth wager results in a win of $2,000. C makes no further wagers on any games at R during the same session. C's combined winnings for the session ($2,000) reduced by C's combined wagers for the session ($100) is $1,900, which is over the $1,200 threshold described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section. In addition, C had one win in the same session of $1,200 or more ($2,000 win). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section, R paid reportable gambling winnings with respect to electronically tracked slot machine play of $1,900. Accordingly, R must report the winnings of $1,900 that it paid to C.
A quetion for any accountant or other person that knows.
I assume that:
Business Profit/loss: If you have a loss in a year you can carry forward.
Capital Gain/Loss (shares, real esate etc): If you hav a loss in a year you can carry forward.
Probably there are limitations in how many years you can carry forward such losses.
And also I appreciate that there limitations of setting of losses of one kind from income of a different kind (ie capital losses can not be offest against business income etc)
Now for Gambling Income/Losses.
How did it come about in the US that whereas Gambling Income is taxed, Gambling losses can not be carried forward to be offest against future gambling income (and this being probably the only type of losses that there is no carry forward)
Quote: JimRockford70% of tax payers don't itemize. With mortgage rates so low, many underestimate the number of home owners who no longer itemize. Depending on your real estate tax rate, with a 4% mortgage you need to have a balance of $200k or so to justify it from your interest and real estate deductions alone. It may come as a shock to folks on the east and west coasts, but that leaves out most of us in the middle of the country that have substantial home equity.
It is probably fair to say that a larger percentage of players don't itemize than do BUT a large win, say $10,000, on a W-2 (even a combination of wins such as twenty $600 W-2s) may change the picture completely. You HAVE to declare the income, as you HAVE to declare any income you have, and you may end up in a different tax situation. The IRS has the information on your wins; you have to prove your losses to them in an acceptable way. Fair is fair; if you accept the casino's word for the hand pay or W-2, accept their word on the losses, too.
Quote: rxwineThis might be good for people who get occasional tips on hand pays. More chances now, if this passes.
Not really I won't be tipping on lower handpays
Quote: Your a criminal in a mass surveillance world
click here for entire web page this was copied from
Into the Abyss
Most federal law is aggregated into the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Let’s start with the CFR. Go here, select a year from the menu, and click Go. A list of 50 Titles will appear (2015 is incomplete). Click on the Text link for any Title and start reading. You’ll see that some Titles have several volumes. For example, here’s Volume 1 of the 2014 Banks & Banking code, the first of ten volumes for that year alone.
If you’re anything like me, after a few minutes your brain will attempt to revolt. Push on and do your best to even vaguely understand what Congress – the lawmakers – demand of Americans. You’re up against literally hundreds of thousands of pages of legalese. Much may not apply to anything you’re currently doing in your life, but finding out what applies to you now and has applied to you in the past is, quite literally, impossible. And with thousands of new rules being created every year, you won’t know when you break new laws in the future either.
Need a breather? Have a laugh with me at the sinister humor of the CFR web site’s slogan: “Keeping America Informed.” How many Americans have even heard of the CFR, much less read a single sentence of its laws? What could possibly better illustrate the essence of propaganda double-talk than this slogan? When you tap out on the CFR, give the USC a browse.
But wait, there’s more. Thousands of pages more. The IRS Code is over 7,500 pages and 3.4 million words. When the IRS decides you’ve done something wrong, you are presumed guilty unless you manage to prove yourself innocent. Anyone who’s dealt with the IRS knows that the process is its own punishment. Now that tax forms are filed electronically, artificial intelligence and data mining increase the power to detect non-compliance exponentially.
You’ve seen it first-hand. The law is truly unknowable to the governed. Being a law-abiding citizen is a myth.