Which job title?

[otter]

What do you think of the idea of listing yourself as "advantage player" or "professional card player?" Or perhaps as others have mentioned, "gaming specialist?"

Is any one better than the other and do I really need to worry or am I just being paranoid? I was totally honest w/ my taxes as far as wins/losses (and will be mailing them tomorrow), but don't want to raise any red flags.

[sports_quant99]

I have a thread on this going right now....the conclusion i've come to is that, as long as you're filing as a pro, i don't see why you can't list anything that's a little ambiguous, as long as it's not a lie. e.g. i do sports gambling, and may list "sports analysis consultant", or "event forecaster", or something like that. I'm certain that listing gambling raises your audit risk.

ps - havent done the schedule C yet, not sure how losses get entered as expenses without mentioning the word "gambling"

[FatalError]

Professional Gambler is the correct term for anyone who's sole profession is any form of wagering

[tomtemor]

Working with mentally retarded people.

[sports_quant99]

I'm not talking about what's legally/technically correct. It's grey enough that you could call it "event forecasting consultant", and not get in any trouble at all if audited.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Professional Gambler is the correct term for anyone who's sole profession is any form of wagering

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point to where this is documented anywhere? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[FatalError]

it goes back to the supreme court case when they formally recognized a professional gambler as a legitimate form of self employment with appropriate deductions, ect.

i'm not looking it up beyond that

[Poker CPA]

Otter

The title is one thing, but what about the all important elections that must be made on your first Business tax return. The business returns could be a partnership (Form 1065), a corporatiion (Forms 1120/1120S) or, as in your case, Schedule C of the 1040. In light of Neteller and online gaming, I'm assuming there were some very interesting discussions between preparers and online gamers, regarding various elections made on the initial year return. Maybe some first year Schedule C filers(or other business retruns)could post about these discussions and the related strategy in making these elections, because once made on the initial return, you need permission from the IRS to change. I'm assuming each filer would make the Neteller a central issue of what COULD happen (or what actually did happen).

[Poker CPA]

FatalError

Does your state consider poker, gambling? Most states consider poker a game of skill, a thus the term "gambling" could be removed from whatever title you select for poker playing. In fact, and much more to the point, has anyone ever had a problem regarding any business title or activity on a Schdeule C tax return. This has never been an issue on any return I have ever been associated with. "Facts" and "circumstances" control most situations having to do with businesses and the IRS. So its not a question of "correct". Unless, of course, you can point to a regulation, case law or penalty consequence. While the term
"facts and consequences" is quite common in IRS issued information.

[Poker CPA]

"Facts and Circumstances" that is, not "facts and consequences"

[Russ Fox]

Having now recovered from April 17th, I saw this line from PokerCPA:

Most states consider poker a game of skill, a thus the term "gambling" could be removed from whatever title you select for poker playing.

I think poker is a game of skill, you may think it's a game of skill, but as far as I know, no state has ruled that poker is a game of skill. This is a myth, unfortunately.

California is the state usually cited for a court case that poker is a game of skill. However, that's not true. Chuck Humphrey has written (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm) that no state has ruled that poker is a game of skill. Specifically, bridge has been ruled a game of skill in California, not poker. Mr. Humphrey notes this here. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/california-lotteries-gambling.htm)

Now, is it possible through exhaustive studies of an online room's records to potentially prove that over time poker is a game of skill? Almost certainly. Is it possible to prove that in any specific hand that poker is a game of skill? Of course not -- there's always luck involved.

-- Russ Fox

[Poker CPA]

So based on these facts and circumstances Russ, do we need to have the word "gambling" in our business description? What is the correct way of handling this and can you identify any penalties for using "whatever" in the description area of the Schedule C. Whats the effect of leaving it "blank". Any actual audit problems that you can share with us. Thank you.

[Poker CPA]

In addition, the "over time" question of "luck vs skill" is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. Ask your clients what they think; The fact they have filed taxes over an extended period of time proves it. Hell, I've won 26 st8 years, and its not gambling, its skill.

[otter]

How about professional gamer?

[Poker CPA]

Otter

The point is, or at least my point; use what you think reflects your personal feeling about you and your profession. If the IRS really cared about this issue, don't you think they would have a code assign to this business/profession. And before completing this information, you ask yourself; "Why does the IRS want this information?" and more importantly, "What do they do with it."

[bossplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
"Facts and Circumstances" that is, not "facts and consequences"

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian slip..... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[sports_quant99]

[ QUOTE ]
... The title is one thing, but what about the all important elections that must be made on your first Business tax return ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What type of elections are you talking about? Thanks

[Poker CPA]

Yeah I thought about that too, I can't help it.

But this is minor crap compared to the ELECTIONS and the Neteller effect (or affect). I'm very surprised by the lack concern about this. On a scale of 1 to 10, elections are an 11 and job title is a one, if that. This should have been Topic #1 with your preparer. So what gives? What was Topic #1 with your accountant?

[Poker CPA]

"What type of elections are you talking about? Thanks"

The ones everyone made a choice on, including you. If not this year then sometime in the past. But if Neteller is not an issue, then OK. But if it can happen once, it can happen again. You must use Turbo Tax.

[sports_quant99]

[ QUOTE ]
"What type of elections are you talking about? Thanks"

The ones everyone made a choice on, including you. If not this year then sometime in the past. But if Neteller is not an issue, then OK. But if it can happen once, it can happen again. You must use Turbo Tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't filed the return yet, so i haven't made any of these "elections". Neteller is luckily not an issue for me.

[Poker CPA]

It doesn't matter. Just have a serious discussion with your preparer, make sure its your election, not his. You know your business a lot better than he does. Take his knowledge of the tax law and your knowledge of your business and then do the right thing. If he is making a election without your final say, then what can I say. Talk to him and maybe the forum can come to an agrement on the best election(s) to make for an online poker player. Whats best for one business is totally wrong for another. It is your tax return and it should reflect all the tax advantages available to your type of operation. One size does not fit all. Is your busiess like a auto dealership, a law firm, an ice cream shop or a hardware store . Of course not. Different stokes for different folks. Make sure your elections are the most advantagous to you, not the best for a pizza shop guy.

[sports_quant99]

Thanks PokerCPA....FYI, my income was from sports gambling, not poker.

[Poker CPA]

It doesn't matter, make sure its YOUR election not his. Because if its not the best for your operation, then its to bad. Its difficult to change, so make sure its right the first time. Good Luck

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Having now recovered from April 17th, I saw this line from PokerCPA:

Most states consider poker a game of skill, a thus the term "gambling" could be removed from whatever title you select for poker playing.

I think poker is a game of skill, you may think it's a game of skill, but as far as I know, no state has ruled that poker is a game of skill. This is a myth, unfortunately.

California is the state usually cited for a court case that poker is a game of skill. However, that's not true. Chuck Humphrey has written (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm) that no state has ruled that poker is a game of skill. Specifically, bridge has been ruled a game of skill in California, not poker. Mr. Humphrey notes this here. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/california-lotteries-gambling.htm)

Now, is it possible through exhaustive studies of an online room's records to potentially prove that over time poker is a game of skill? Almost certainly. Is it possible to prove that in any specific hand that poker is a game of skill? Of course not -- there's always luck involved.

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Fox, Chuck Humphrey is a recognized expert, but he is only one expert and his opinions are not shared by all the experts. The articles you cite are OPINIONS, not law.

The California Courts HAVE expressed the opinion that Poker is a game of skill. Did they do an exhaustive analysis to determine whether it was more skill than chance? No, what the opinions consistently hold is that poker is a game of at least enough skill that it is NOT A LOTTERY. And it was not the use of cards that made the difference, it was the element of skill. A Missouri Court has ruled the same way.

In law, a Court explicitly ruling on a question is the highest precedent while a court accepting a propostition in the course of deciding something else is the second best precedent. The California cases fall into the second category and thus help the case for poker quite a bit IMHO, despite what CH says.

And even Humphrey recognizes that it is possible to prove poker a game of skill, though his limited knowledge of poker makes him unsure. I personally think it is easy, check this thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9566359&page=24&fpart=2& vc=1)

Skallagrim

PS - and how can Bridge be a game of skill and poker not? The "one hand is luck" opinion is completely wrong IMHO. Sometimes one hand's outcome is the product of luck, sometimes its skill. Same is true in bridge. Same is true of any game where the distribution of the cards only sets the stage for further play if that further play can determine the outcome despite the cards. Which of course happens quite frequently in both poker and bridge. Whats key to the legal analysis is whether the cards determine MOST outcomes, or whether the play does.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
PS - and how can Bridge be a game of skill and poker not? The "one hand is luck" opinion is completely wrong IMHO. Sometimes one hand's outcome is the product of luck, sometimes its skill. Same is true in bridge. Same is true of any game where the distribution of the cards only sets the stage for further play if that further play can determine the outcome despite the cards. Which of course happens quite frequently in both poker and bridge. Whats key to the legal analysis is whether the cards determine MOST outcomes, or whether the play does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to stray too far afield, but - all competitive bridge is played duplicate style. The same exact hands are played by 3-10 tables, and points are awarded based one team's results as compared to all of the other teams that played that exact hand. All teams play each other during the match, negating the effect of having less skilled teams in the field. Bridge, played this way, is entirely a game of skill.

[Skallagrim]

The case about bridge is In re Allen, 59 Cal. 2d 5, 377 P.2d 280, 27 Cal. Rptr. 168 (Cal. 12/19/1962). It is about regular bridge, not tournament, duplicate bridge. Every fact it uses for support of the conclusion that bridge is a game of skill can be duplicated for modern forms of poker. Plus there is the argument given by me and supported by TruPokerCEO's numbers.