I OWE MORE TAXES THAN MY ACTUAL NET

[Holden97]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
did you read the thread where irs called a guy a pro who had 20,000 income and another full time job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I've also read the court cases/irs decisions not letting people file as a pro without meeting the 3-year test and the substantial non-poker income test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the recent tax court case where the taxpayer had $234 of gambling income and substantially more (76 times as much) income from his job?

Answer in White: <font color="white"> He was considered to be a professional gambler. </font>

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
did you read the thread where irs called a guy a pro who had 20,000 income and another full time job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I've also read the court cases/irs decisions not letting people file as a pro without meeting the 3-year test and the substantial non-poker income test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the recent tax court case where the taxpayer had $234 of gambling income and substantially more (76 times as much) income from his job?

Answer in White: <font color="white"> He was considered to be a professional gambler. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

That unfortunately doesn't mean much other than we have hope if we want to go to tax court over the issue ourselves.

[Holden97]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
did you read the thread where irs called a guy a pro who had 20,000 income and another full time job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I've also read the court cases/irs decisions not letting people file as a pro without meeting the 3-year test and the substantial non-poker income test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the recent tax court case where the taxpayer had $234 of gambling income and substantially more (76 times as much) income from his job?

Answer in White: <font color="white"> He was considered to be a professional gambler. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

That unfortunately doesn't mean much other than we have hope if we want to go to tax court over the issue ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which, in turn, means something to the IRS.

[wiz_apprentice]

blendedsuit,

If it is possible for you, I'd suggest moving to a state without a state income tax. That way you only have to deal with federal taxes on your gambling winnings. It will save you a lot of heartache and money. Unfortunately, many states have very nasty rules when it comes to gambling winnings. If you live in a place w/o a state income tax, it will save you a lot trouble in the future.

[blendedsuit]

yeah, i was thinking about moving to new hampshire or nevada. but all the other mass players deal with this somehow. maybe i'lll just stop playing cards.

[Uglyowl]

I guess technically if you win $100,000 and lose $150,000 playing poker, you would owe Mass. $5,000. Go figure [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

How many grannies who play at Foxwoods keep records though?

[lala]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
did you read the thread where irs called a guy a pro who had 20,000 income and another full time job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I've also read the court cases/irs decisions not letting people file as a pro without meeting the 3-year test and the substantial non-poker income test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the recent tax court case where the taxpayer had $234 of gambling income and substantially more (76 times as much) income from his job?

Answer in White: <font color="white"> He was considered to be a professional gambler. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

can you provide a link to the case?

[The IRS]

Rest assured that an audit is in your future. We do not appreciate such comments.

[KaneKungFu123]

This is a huge flaw disadvantage in the system.