This should end all of the false claims about paying US taxes on poker - Page 16

break0ut · #**151** 02-04-2007, 12:03 AM

Hi guys/gals, just chiming in here. I am a 5th yr. Accounting student (CPA eligible) and am a certified tax preparer. I would be more than happy to assist in answering questions so don't hesitate to post or PM me.

Josem · #**152** 02-04-2007, 12:53 AM

lol@ this thread.

y'all should really look at migrating somewhere with simpler tax codes.

as an outsider (from a country where a pro-player would, i think, just submit their net, and an amateur be tax free) you really should consider the costs of maintaining records like the IRS apparently want.

(there may be residual tax obligations if you do move. look into it)

Russ Fox · #**153** 02-04-2007, 02:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm.... Russ, are you sure you're correct on this? I thought the IRS could only share info if you incriminate yourself, waiving your 5th amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure about this. Although you are supposed to put down your occupation, if you're in an illegal occupation you should "adjust" what you do. Businessman, salesperson, etc. are legal occupations. You're not required to incriminate yourself (note: I'm not an attorney, but that was the Supreme Court's ruling).

There are two cases that I'm aware of regarding occupation. The first was a bookmaker in Kentucky who put down as his occupation "bookmaker." (No, he wasn't in the publishing business; he really was a sports betting bookmaker.) He sent in his tax return, someone at the IRS forwarded the information that he might be a bookmaker to the FBI. The FBI investigated, found he was a bookmaker. He was arrested and convicted. The appeals court basically said that there was no problem with the IRS forwarding his name to the FBI.

There's a similar case that I've heard about (but have never seen) dealing with a bank robber in Iowa.

Those engaged in illegal occupations are not forced to self-incriminate themselves by listing their 'true' occupations on their tax returns. Indeed, the IRS has special procedures for individuals paying the excise tax on wagering; their names cannot be forwarded to law enforcement.

-- Russ Fox
co-author, "Why You Lose at Poker"

Wynton · #**154** 02-04-2007, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Those engaged in illegal occupations are not forced to self-incriminate themselves by listing their 'true'

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly here. If someone lists their occupation so as to indicate an illegal activity, that evidence will be admissible in court, even if they claim they were forced to incriminate themselves. To put it differently, I don't believe a court would accept the argument that this was some kind of coerced statement (for a hard or difficult choice does not make it involuntary).

Perhaps you are suggesting that a person cannot get in trouble by indicating the wrong occupation?

In any event, I have no doubt that the IRS may forward its files to law enforcement agencies.

sports_quant99 · #**155** 02-04-2007, 11:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm.... Russ, are you sure you're correct on this? I thought the IRS could only share info if you incriminate yourself, waiving your 5th amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure about this. Although you are supposed to put down your occupation, if you're in an illegal occupation you should "adjust" what you do. Businessman, salesperson, etc. are legal occupations. You're not required to incriminate yourself (note: I'm not an attorney, but that was the Supreme Court's ruling).

There are two cases that I'm aware of regarding occupation. The first was a bookmaker in Kentucky who put down as his occupation "bookmaker." (No, he wasn't in the publishing business; he really was a sports betting bookmaker.) He sent in his tax return, someone at the IRS forwarded the information that he might be a bookmaker to the FBI. The FBI investigated, found he was a bookmaker. He was arrested and convicted. The appeals court basically said that there was no problem with the IRS forwarding his name to the FBI.

There's a similar case that I've heard about (but have never seen) dealing with a bank robber in Iowa.

Those engaged in illegal occupations are not forced to self-incriminate themselves by listing their 'true' occupations on their tax returns. Indeed, the IRS has special procedures for individuals paying the excise tax on wagering; their names cannot be forwarded to law enforcement.

-- Russ Fox
co-author, "Why You Lose at Poker"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point. So the silver platter doctrine *does* apply, as long as you dont incriminate yourself (?)

joe c · #**156** 02-04-2007, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think 95% of these people don't have any record of their "sessions". Aren't most people who do any gambling violating the law when they prepare their taxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, there is no law saying that we have to pay federal income tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

its called section 1 of the tax code. just because some moran made a movie claiming there isn't a law requiring individuals to pay federal income tax, doesn't mean he's correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

show me the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an idiot. Section one is law, read it. or better yet, read the IRS's response to 'show me the law':

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

or how about response by a tax law professor to Aaron Russo's movie and/or other nut jobs who claim there is no law requiring payment of tax:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../taxes/F2F.htm

some people are way too gullible and will believe anything they hear.

Lottery Larry · #**157** 02-04-2007, 01:35 PM

THANK you, joe.

Lottery Larry · #**158** 02-04-2007, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you really should consider the costs of maintaining records like the IRS apparently want.

[/ QUOTE ]

talk about LOL- the "costs of maintaining records"? How hard/expensive do you think that actually is?

It's simple, really. Anyone who has more than 10 posts in a month on this forum can't claim they don't have enough time to keep records, even for online play.

mwgr5 · #**159** 02-04-2007, 02:29 PM

So to clarify, if I am playing say 5 tables of a cash game in "one sitting" during one day, I would have played one session and thus would report the net winnings or loses from that session. Or is each table I played considered an individual session?

adanthar · #**160** 02-04-2007, 03:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So to clarify, if I am playing say 5 tables of a cash game in "one sitting" during one day, I would have played one session and thus would report the net winnings or loses from that session. Or is each table I played considered an individual session?

[/ QUOTE ]

Russ Fox maintains that this would be five sessions. I strongly disagree with this and I think if it ever got to court I would be proven correct. YMMV.