More Online Gambling Legislation Introduced

[Neonclaws]

I don't see why they can't just tax the profits like any other business...is anyone concerned about this meaning some sort of higher rake structure, or do people think they sites would just suck up the 2% and leave rakes as is?

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why they can't just tax the profits like any other business...is anyone concerned about this meaning some sort of higher rake structure, or do people think they sites would just suck up the 2% and leave rakes as is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does 2% really sound that bad? We knew they were going to sock it to us to some degree if we ever got legalization. Plus it is on deposits-- 2+2ers don't do, proportionally, too many deposits.

We withdraw...

[oldbookguy]

A quick example on international:

I run an online business and ship several times a month to Italy, France, Germany.....

I am not required to pay them any taxes if I have no physical presence there. The same is true in the reverse, they have no obligation here if they have no physical presence. We however ARE required to pay taxes on monies we make outside the U.S. (my vintage toys & books) including Poker winnings.

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why they can't just tax the profits like any other business...is anyone concerned about this meaning some sort of higher rake structure, or do people think they sites would just suck up the 2% and leave rakes as is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you are a dreamer. This 2% is a monthly license "fee"---different than the yearly Federal and State business income taxes that they will owe .

The 2% Fed fee will be another business cost that will ultimately be paid by the customers, if they ever get to play at a state legalized, Fed. regulated site.

Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think states will tax less than the feds? Also, have you seen any progress at the state level? I sure haven't.

[Legislurker]

Thats the crux of the reason we would prefer as poker pros to
go back the the legal grey area. How to share revenues between the states, the feds, and navigate state opt outs is a mine field and a half. The only precedent I can think of is the tobacco settlement. If the feds adopt a we can't do anything approach, the ability of a state to extradite or prosecute or even deny access would be laughable. Toothless regulations wouldn't be too bad as long as executives realized they can't travel thru certain US states.

[oldbookguy]

Legis, it was not really grey before, the only poker arrest was from a warrent is Louisiana and was not honored in NY, the guy was let go. Later they paid a 400K fine to La.

Sites just need to:

1. block access to these 14 states:
Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont.
2. Send 1099 when cash outs pass 600.00
3. require filing a bank form for over seas if accout reaches / exceeds 10K.

See: http://www.worldwinner.com/cgi/legal/terms.html

A LEGAL Card Wagering Site ran in MASS.!

obg

[jschaud]

i've been looking at the SC state laws and I really can't find any law that specifically states online gambling. This just doesn't completely make sense to me though.

SECTION 16-19-40. Unlawful games and betting.

If any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of spirituous liquors or in any house used as a place of gaming, barn, kitchen, stable or other outhouse, street, highway, open wood, race field or open place at (a) any game with cards or dice, (b) any gaming table, commonly called A, B, C, or E, O, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (c) any roley-poley table, (d) rouge et noir, (e) any faro bank (f) any other table or bank of the same or the like kind under any denomination whatsoever or (g) any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling purposes, except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting on any such game of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist or shall bet on the sides or hands of such as do game, upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars, and every person so keeping such tavern, inn, retail store, public place, or house used as a place for gaming or such other house shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon indictment, be imprisoned for a period not exceeding twelve months and forfeit a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, for each and every offense.


I also found this site which if accurate is just excellent work.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/

It appears to be somewhat current as it mentions the washington bill from last year.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked and found no ongoing activity in any state to legalize Internet gambling. Nevada has legalized Internet gambling for licensed operators, but they've yet to issue a single license. North Dakota passed one through their House, but it stalled in their Senate.

Given that, how can we "just get the states to legalize" when there's no action to legalize in any state?

[jschaud]

next time one of you nosebleed stakes guys plays, could you do it at my house? Just in case you drop a bunch of cash, i can get it back for you.

SECTION 32-1-20. Suit by person other than loser for recovery of losses.
If loser fails to sue for recovery, any other person may. In case any person who shall lose such money or other thing as aforesaid shall not, within the time aforesaid, really and bona fide and without covin or collusion sue and with effect prosecute for the money or other things so by him or them lost and paid and delivered as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for any other person, by any such action or suit as aforesaid, to sue for and recover the same and treble the value thereof, with costs of suit, against such winner or winners as aforesaid, the one moiety thereof to the use of the person that will sue for the same and the other moiety to the use of the county in which the offense shall have been committed.