Stupid Gambling Laws

Quote: Buzzard

Might be doing the public a favor. I have been told that Canadian beer and urine share a similar taste. EH ?

I have drunk many Canadian beers Buzz and thought they were not bad. But I have never tasted urine, in your experience it tastes similar to Canadian beer?

Just repeating what I was told. I do remember the guy would walked into poolroom/bar and asked for a bottle of billiards.

Need I say more, EH ?

Massachusetts law is funny. I know of a "restaurant" that carried a single can of beans, which they theoretically would have served on request, because a restaurant license was easier for them to get than a bar license. You can certainly just get a drink, though, at least legally, anywhere that serves alcohol. For some reason, the customer is responsible for meal tax if it's a restaurant license, but not if it's a bar license - although I have been to a bar that served hot food and took care of the meal tax, and it seems like a health risk to allow hot food on a bar license alone, so I don't know if they just took care of it themselves, or it's some regulatory weirdness.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Filed under stupid gambling laws: the way recreational gamblers are required to file taxes. I'm thinking about starting a website/Facebook page/twitter account/PR campaign for this cause. Will you all join my PAC and sign my petition?

My demand is quite simple: just let us net out our wins and losses....that's it. I won't try to escape paying taxes on a net win, and Uncle Sam lets me keep my god damn standard deduction if I happen to gamble a lot.

I know they made changes to some laws concerning this.( It might have been because of all the poker players) You might want to look into it closer. I know it got better for Pro gamblers I thought it also helped Non professionals as well. I thought I even heard something about non pros, not losing their standard deduction.

Quote: AxelWolf

I know they made changes to some laws concerning this.( It might have been because of all the poker players) You might want to look into it closer. I know it got better for Pro gamblers I thought it also helped Non professionals as well. I thought I even heard something about non pros, not losing their standard deduction.

That's hard to believe.

The tax situation for gamblers is horrific, and not by accident. Uncle Sam is only the beginning of the problem. Many states impose absurd limitations on recreational gamblers (typically by disallowing loss deductions), and some jurisdictions dip into every W-2G at issuance for mandatory withholdings that may be difficult or impossible to recover.

Don't know whether I'd call it "stupid" or not, but it's certainly unfortunate for some blackjack players. It is against WA state law to do any side betting inside a casino. This includes wagering on other people's hands, which eliminates APs' opportunity to double for other players.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Filed under stupid gambling laws: the way recreational gamblers are required to file taxes. I'm thinking about starting a website/Facebook page/twitter account/PR campaign for this cause. Will you all join my PAC and sign my petition?

My demand is quite simple: just let us net out our wins and losses....that's it. I won't try to escape paying taxes on a net win, and Uncle Sam lets me keep my god damn standard deduction if I happen to gamble a lot.

I agree with this completely. The law does not require you to itemize. You could wind up owing taxes on $1,000,000 income when you lost money. I do not think a judge could possibly allow the ridiculous outcome that seems to follow. Someone should fight it. Plus, is card counting gambling? I don't think so, don't know of any court decisions or statutes that say it is either.
But if youre talking about non-AP, I don't really agree because most are net losers and aren't expected to file anything (even though they are supposed to?). The winners are supposed to file and itemize if they gamble a lot and their wins are large enough (which would be rare) as a sin tax. People universally avoid filing if they are non-slot winners anyway, and I doubt making the tax scheme more reasonable would change that much.

Quote: mickeycrimm

MTRA's current move is trying to get the betting limit raised. I got a big laugh out of one quote from a bar/casino owner:

"One of the things that is going to need to be done is to raise the amount that can be bet to make line games more profitable for the player." LOL!

That's priceless. Line games are the worst games for players in Montana; they are limited to 92% payback, where video poker, keno, and bingo don't have an upper limit.

Quote: BizzyB

You could wind up owing taxes on $1,000,000 income when you lost money. I do not think a judge could possibly allow the ridiculous outcome that seems to follow. Someone should fight it.

I can only assume the ridiculous outcome is as intended. The system is designed to punish people who gamble.

Quote:

Plus, is card counting gambling? I don't think so, don't know of any court decisions or statutes that say it is either.

But if youre talking about non-AP, I don't really agree because most are net losers and aren't expected to file anything (even though they are supposed to?). The winners are supposed to file and itemize if they gamble a lot and their wins are large enough (which would be rare) as a sin tax. People universally avoid filing if they are non-slot winners anyway, and I doubt making the tax scheme more reasonable would change that much.

Playing blackjack is gambling, regardless of technique.

If you've ever played a slot machine and cashed out more than you inserted, you are mandated to declare the winnings as income (depending on your precise definition of a "session"). Obviously most gamblers cheat on the requirements, but it's a very dysfunctional situation, and a lot of ordinary Americans are vulnerable to serious consequences in the event that they're singled out for attention from the government.

Estelle Busch proved you can lose for years at slots and still be considered a professional gambler.

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/index.php/columns/205-slot-player-held-to-be-professional-gambler-can-deduct-losses

Quote: gpac1377

I can only assume the ridiculous outcome is as intended. The system is designed to punish people who gamble.


Playing blackjack is gambling, regardless of technique.

If you've ever played a slot machine and cashed out more than you inserted, you are mandated to declare the winnings as income (depending on your precise definition of a "session"). Obviously most gamblers cheat on the requirements, but it's a very dysfunctional situation, and a lot of ordinary Americans are vulnerable to serious consequences in the event that they're singled out for attention from the government.

I can't disagree, but I have never heard of such a ridiculous outcome as the one I mentioned (obviously no one is going to choose not to itemize in such an example, it is likely no one wants to deliberately take on the govt).
I'm pretty sure they laxed the law to the point where you are only 'supposed' to report winnings from any particular 24 hour period, or from any particular time you cashed out...not any particular pull of the reel or hand in cards. It is a dysfunctional requirement. Millions of people win a few bucks and don't report it (they go back and lose it anyway). The IRS obviously doesn't go after them, nor are they included in statistical data that attempts to pinpoint how many people cheat on their taxes.
Under an economic or financial theory, counting cards would not be gambling for the same reason the house is not gambling--no long run winning is possible for the gambler in a game of chance. Yeah, colloquially it is considered gambling. I'm not so sure the law is clear on this point.

Quote: BizzyB

I'm pretty sure they laxed the law to the point where you are only 'supposed' to report winnings from any particular 24 hour period, or from any particular time you cashed out...not any particular pull of the reel or hand in cards.

The law itself is ambiguous, which to my knowledge hasn't changed. But we're able to draw inferences from court rulings and correspondence, such as this IRS memorandum from 2008: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008011.pdf

Interestingly the word "session" is never mentioned. Instead, the analogous term is "transaction."

From the document:

"Some would contend that transaction means every single play in a game of chance or every wager made."

"Courts considering that reading have found it unduly burdensome and unreasonable. Moreover, the statute uses the plural term 'transactions' implying that gain or loss may be calculated over a series of separate plays or wagers.

"The better view is that a casual gambler, such as the taxpayer who plays the slot machines, recognizes a wagering gain or loss at the time she redeems her tokens."

So you can move from machine to machine within a session, but not to a table game or to a different casino.

The discussion only references machines, but it seems logical (usual caveats) that a similar concept would apply within the table game realm.

As you can probably tell, I'm not a tax professional.

Quote: PGBuster

In my time and travels in various casinos, it seems that every jurisdiction in this country has some stupid laws pertaining to gambling. In Missouri, alcohol can not be given away for free.

My beef rests with a law in Colorado: Dealers (or any other employee) can not advise players how to play the game. This means that by law, if a new player who has never played wants to hit 20, I'm not allowed to say anything. Fortunately, there's usually another player that will stop them, but I have to stand their in silence. I can't think of another rule that is more unfriendly to the player on its face than this. (States that allow aggregate maximums is the other one. IIRC, Illinois does not allow this). It makes the dealers and floorpeople look like their being "mean" when they are really only enforcing the rules. Its worse for a game like Pai Gow or Bonus Six (A Colorado specialty, apparently), when you have to teach the game without giving advice.

As an employee, I think its ridiculous that state law doesn't allow me to tell a player whether or not I want them to bet my tip. Since when does the state get to decide how much (or how little) money someone can make?

Not having being on either coast in my lifetime, do other jurisdictions have similarly ridiculous laws?

Every item you mentioned is not legal in Arizona. I guess we're the best of the worst. :)


ZCore13