|
|
#101
11-16-2005, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wow taxes are seriously a pain in the ass. I'd kill for a simple solution. I didn't even know you had to pay quarterly taxes even if you're not filing as a professional. About 9 months worth of my PT data crashed. Am I screwed? [/ QUOTE ] I have been fearing that something could happen to my computer and I would also be screwed. I'm going to start backing up my important data (I should already do this anyways). I believe if you do not have anything to back up what you have done than you have to take a standard deduction? My brother's ex-wife used to work for a place where they get tipped. She didn't keep any records and was not going to pay taxes on it. She was caught on what the IRS made her pay was substantially higher than what she claims she actually was tipped. It pays to have accurate information. [/ QUOTE ] So I am screwed. 
|
|
#102
11-21-2005, 01:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
I'm a CPA/ Tax accountant but I do not specialize in individual or gambling taxes. I've poked around a bit and am somewhat knowlegeable about the issues. Certainly good enough to feel comfortable about my own filing, but not enough to advise others. IMO some of it is pretty cut and dry. Other aspects of it are part art and subject to interpretation. Some of it perhaps is just a question of how aggressive you want to be vs. your threshold for risk.
My biggest question is about following the definition of a "session". Is this generally subject to loose or rigid interpretation? Certainly this definition was not created with the mulit-tabling, table hopping, internet style of poker in mind. If you choose to take a much more liberal interpretation of the meaning of a session, such as saying 1 day= 1 session (when techically a day could constist of well over 10 to perhaps a hundred sessions), how much of an exposure does this create? Is the IRS likely to beef with you over this issue? I would think that most local CPAs would probably have a similiar level understanding of gambling taxes as I have. Basically the type of solid understanding of taxlaws, access to research resources, good judgement, but little experience with gambooling taxes positions that have been examined by the IRS. This would mean that they would likely be makeing some interpretations as well as making some judgements. But I would not think they would have the experience with gambling taxes to give clients an extremely airtight position. Certainly better than a layman, but I'd be surprised if there was anything even slightly approaching uniform treatment of reporting poker/gambling income from CPA to CPA. I'd be curious what other CPA's thought about my statements. -MAxx
|
|
#104
11-29-2005, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
[ QUOTE ]
Also the US government could go to Party and say something like, "So far we have been pretty much turning a blind eye to your activities. Turn over the financial records of your US clients or we will bring the hammer down." [/ QUOTE ] Seeing as how Party is based in...Gibraltar, I believe?? correct me if I'm wrong....I somehow don't think Party would be quaking in their boots over the threat of said hammer. --Scott
|
|
#105
11-29-2005, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also the US government could go to Party and say something like, "So far we have been pretty much turning a blind eye to your activities. Turn over the financial records of your US clients or we will bring the hammer down." [/ QUOTE ] Seeing as how Party is based in...Gibraltar, I believe?? correct me if I'm wrong....I somehow don't think Party would be quaking in their boots over the threat of said hammer. [/ QUOTE ] No offense intended, but that's a very naive view.
|
|
#106
11-30-2005, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
[ QUOTE ]
Are site bonuses and rakebacks considered gambling income, or just misc. income? I know you have to report it, but how does it work as far as offsetting losses, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Interesting question. IMO they would be considered either rebates or gifts, neither of which is taxable. Having to choose one or the other, I would say rebate. Again, not taxable.
|
|
#108
12-02-2005, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
IMO they would be considered either rebates or gifts, neither of which is taxable. Having to choose one or the other, I would say rebate. Again, not taxable.
I would be careful here. The sense I have gathered and my personal conclusion is that these are in fact taxable. They are income and must be declared. The analogue currently in my head relates to brokerage transactions involving a commission. When you make a trade the brokerage tacks on a commission which you pay, which is added to your cost basis and reduces your profit when you close your position (or increases your loss if you're taking one). Thus you're already getting a deduction of the commission from your gains. You don't get it twice if you get a commission rebate. Either your basis is reduced so your profit greater (and hence taxex) or your basis remains the same but you're receiving income (and hence taxed). Rakeback and bonuses are like getting a commission rebate. But that's just my amateur conclusion.
|
|
#109
12-03-2005, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
[ QUOTE ]
IMO they would be considered either rebates or gifts, neither of which is taxable. Having to choose one or the other, I would say rebate. Again, not taxable. I would be careful here. The sense I have gathered and my personal conclusion is that these are in fact taxable. They are income and must be declared. The analogue currently in my head relates to brokerage transactions involving a commission. When you make a trade the brokerage tacks on a commission which you pay, which is added to your cost basis and reduces your profit when you close your position (or increases your loss if you're taking one). Thus you're already getting a deduction of the commission from your gains. You don't get it twice if you get a commission rebate. Either your basis is reduced so your profit greater (and hence taxex) or your basis remains the same but you're receiving income (and hence taxed). Rakeback and bonuses are like getting a commission rebate. But that's just my amateur conclusion. [/ QUOTE ] Gotta admit, you make a strong argument. I was thinking of rakeback and bonuses as being given for the using of a product, no so much as a returning of profits. My analogy would be a casino comping a player a hotel suite. Would the fair market value of the room offset any winnings a gambler might have?
|
|
#110
12-04-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ed Miller\'s Tax Article
My analogy would be a casino comping a player a hotel suite. Would the fair market value of the room offset any winnings a gambler might have?
Yeah, I don't know how comps work. I might guess that by giving you stuff the casino is assuming that you're losing (at least theoretical dollars over the long run) b/c the games have a house edge. So as long as you keep wagering you're theoretically losing. As long as you're losing the IRS doesn't care. Plus valuing comps could be hard? Don't know. I do know that the IRS decided a while back that frequent flier miles are tax-free (in a situation where you receive them for business travel that is company paid). It wasn't so much that the IRS didn't want the money for what it saw as non-cash compensation, but that they were impossible to value due to the many and constantly changing variables relating to redemption. So maybe the answer to your question is to collect all of your rakeback in 'leopard print thongs' as someone posted to me here a long while back.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
