Q: Why does the definition of a "session" matter for tax purposes??

[jively]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If some of the tables were NL50 and others NL100, you can still combine them.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. These games are not the same stake. That's why almost all posts in this forum regarding tax advice are completely worthless. Even the "experts" commonly contradict each other on very fundamental issues in this debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with the expert in my previous link?

[ QUOTE ]
[...]let’s look at a useful analogy – a blackjack player. Our hypothetical player enters a casino, buys $1000 in chips, and starts playing at Table BJ-7 betting $5 per hand. After an hour he has lost $100. He decides he doesn’t like the dealer, moves to Table BJ-8 and now bets $10 per hand. After an hour he has won $500 at this table. He cashes out at the cashier’s cage with a net win of $400. In my view, the blackjack player has played one continuous session for two hours at two different tables. If he were to come back later that day and play more blackjack he would be starting a new session.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is considered one session, how about his example B of the player who plays $3/6 Omaha/8 and moves to $6/12 Omaha/8 when his seat opens up?

-Tom

[ADS]

Jively,

Good post. I am a CPA as well, but don't really deal with personal taxes that much....except my own.

Question for a quick analysis: Can you do the same analysis for someone who is:
-Itemizing deductions
-past the Fica max threshhold (don't think this is relevant if not a pro)
-No material medical expenses.

A couple of questions:
AMT is not an issue AT ALL here...correct?
The personal exemption reduction is a function of AGI, correct? Is that your only additional tax? What about a joint return?

Sorry for the rambling questions.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for a quick analysis: Can you do the same analysis for someone who is:
-Itemizing deductions


[/ QUOTE ]

I am able to answer this question for you. If you are already itemizing deductions prior to considering your poker income the end result of using sessions vs netting will be nil.

[Sand]

[ QUOTE ]

So do you disagree with the expert in my previous link?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is actually the best, most concise article I have seen written on the subject (it seems to contradict Russ Fox a bit as well). Since I play Holdem only right now I count a session as when I plop my butt down and get my butt up.

It seems the most logical and consistent way to go.

[WhoIam]

I define a session as all play that takes place at a particular site in a 24-hour period. Sorry, that's just going to have to have to be good enough. I 8-table 6-max tables that often break up and can easily reach 100 "sessions" in a day. I don't have the time to keep track of all of these. There's no formal definition of what a session is exactly and I can't see a court ruling against me for making a careful daily record that's clearly a good-faith effort to stay within the law. It's ridiculous to expect me to spend more time accounting than actually playing.

[holdin2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question for a quick analysis: Can you do the same analysis for someone who is:
-Itemizing deductions


[/ QUOTE ]

I am able to answer this question for you. If you are already itemizing deductions prior to considering your poker income the end result of using sessions vs netting will be nil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's fine for federal taxes, but if you are lucky enough to live in the states that don't let you deduct your poker losses, then it does make a difference. Correct?

And doesn't my tax bracket point have validity to it? When you have to list your gross winning that could jump you up a bracket or two. I really dont' know if that affects the tax you pay or deduction you are able to claim or what, but it must make some difference.

[Russ Fox]

[ QUOTE ]
That is actually the best, most concise article I have seen written on the subject (it seems to contradict Russ Fox a bit as well).

[/ QUOTE ]

Since that article was written by Russ Fox, I have my doubts that it contradicts him....

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

[Karak567]

so if you lost all your pokertracker files in a format

and you never took note of sessions

you're [censored]?

[jively]

[ QUOTE ]
Jively,

Good post. I am a CPA as well, but don't really deal with personal taxes that much....except my own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, I'm glad it was appreciated. I am not a CPA. I am a CFP practitioner. I just made up numbers and plugged them into TurboTax.

[ QUOTE ]
Question for a quick analysis: Can you do the same analysis for someone who is:
-Itemizing deductions
-past the Fica max threshhold (don't think this is relevant if not a pro)
-No material medical expenses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that FICA max threshold does not matter if not filing as a pro. I could have done the examples with more state tax paid and no medical expenses. It would not have mattered unless AMT got involved. I was just picking something (medical) that had an AGI threshold.

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of questions:
AMT is not an issue AT ALL here...correct?
The personal exemption reduction is a function of AGI, correct? Is that your only additional tax? What about a joint return?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really an expert on AMT. I believe gambling losses are not reduced in any way regarding AMT.

Yes, the exemption is reduced based on AGI. Filing status does not matter; it would be simimar filing jointly or HOH or anything.

-Tom

[driller]

[ QUOTE ]
I am able to answer this question for you. If you are already itemizing deductions prior to considering your poker income the end result of using sessions vs netting will be nil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. See some of the above posts for examples of how having a MUCH higher gross income will affect your deductions, including personal exemptions.