[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Part of that is establishing that poker is a game of skill, not luck. I think we have a need to be here getting poker seen as skillful by the IRS. If we win this argument, we'll be far better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That argument can't be won. No amount of proof will be
acceptable to the IRS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you miss the legal distinctions involved. It is not an arguement that poker is all skill and no luck. The skills game arguement is that there is a significant amount of skill involved and the outcome does not depend only on luck.

The reason for the PPA's involvement in this issue is the reg cites rules established for wagering pools and lotteries in adittion to the ones concerning gambling in general.

This does need to be challenged. IMO it will not required a very expensive effort. But IMO the end result will be the same, with-holdings from trouney wins.

Yes it is a technical legal arguement, and one that can be won, but it is not one that will cause the whole reg to fail. All it will take is for the IRS to modify the reg to cite the appropiate law (if such laws exist). Given the background of law on gambling winnings, and the existing laws and negociations with the casinos on table games reporting I assume such laws and regulatory background exists. I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to this issue with complete confidence.

But in the end do not expect this rule to go away, nor should you critize the PPA when and if they win their legal distinction but with-holding become a reality.

Creating too big a buzz about this issue and anouncing that you might fight it tooth and nail, is part of the PR nighmare I've refered to in past posts.


D$D