Congressmen Press for Solution to WTO Internet Gambling Dispute

[JeffreyS]

Momentum for regulated Internet gambling is continuing to gain speed as eight members of Congress encouraged the Bush administration to consider altering its ban on Internet gambling rather than pay compensation to countries barred from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S. The statements were made in a letter to the United States Trade Representative Schwab.

Here is a link to media coverage on the story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3886180

Here is a link to the letter: http://www.safeandsecureig.org/media/ustrletter.pdf

Let’s keep up the fight and demand Congress regulate Internet gambling as a way to resolve the WTO conflict and give us the freedom to gamble online.

To learn more about this issue and to contact your elected representative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[Jay Cohen]

Mr. Sandman,

You want the Frank bill and that's fine. I know the people who are backing you and I get it. There are a lot of good arguments you can make for the Frank bill. But why does your group continue to put out misleading statements like this one on your home page?

"Frank’s legislation to regulate Internet gambling would resolve the WTO dispute and eliminate the need for the U.S. to pay trade compensation."

The Frank bill in its present state will not resolve the WTO issue. The three main reasons are the state opt outs, the sports league opt outs, and the requirement for Antiguan companies to "Americanize" and set up US offices and pay US taxes.

Please stop putting out false and misleading information.

Jay Cohen

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the people who are backing you and I get it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jay,

Why do you keep being coy about hiding the players behind this safe and secure site? There have been too many shills in this forum over the last year who hide their true agenda and interests. So why not just out this organization?

Since they want the Frank bill and not the Weixler one, they aren't representing poker, and also want no regulations, just open access with no strings attached. And they have been repeatedly and intentionally lying about the Frank bill bringing the US into compliance on the WTO issue. Which means they don't give a rat's ass about Antiguan companies, and also are probably competitors.

So I would bet that makes the best possibilities for the backers being a) Costa Rican based sports betting companies, or b) British based sports betting companies. Am I close?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know the people who are backing you and I get it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jay,

Why do you keep being coy about hiding the players behind this safe and secure site? There have been too many shills in this forum over the last year who hide their true agenda and interests. So why not just out this organization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay IMO has treaded a very fine line politically, as has Mason IMO. As pointed out a number of times, this forum is a fairly open access communications medium.

I have deep personal opinions about how S&S chooses to operate, almost 100% negative, which I have expressed privately to "Jeffery" and his "bosses".

The sayings are; "politics makes strange bedfellows" and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

But S&S has pushed this philosophy close to the breaking point. To the point that I may out these "people" myself.

I have problems with the PPA, but continue to do anything asked of me personally or to the general membership, but S&S doesn't even deserve to have its name used in the same sentence or conversation!!!



D$D

[ubercuber]

[ QUOTE ]
But S&S has pushed this philosophy close to the breaking point. To the point that I may out these "people" myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it seems clear they are not just an organization looking out for poker players! I assume they have an interest that undermines their credibility. So, since we know that much we might as well know who it is...

[JPFisher55]

France and Germany have attempted to prosecute foreign online gambling sites, but the EU have completely shut that down. China has threatened CNN and some other websites and gotten them to cooperate. But I don't want to equate China with US.
I have not researched prosecutions by countries against foreign websites like the US v. WSEX or BetOnSports, but I have read numerous articles about this type of jurisdiction without mention of similar cases. One exception is a website advertising in a foreign country. But when a company advertises on media in another country then it establishes a presence beyond just a website. Maybe Yahoo was investigated etc. for advertising in France?
Anyway the WTO pending action is going to affect this matter in a big way and soon.

[oldbookguy]

Jay, glad we have common ground, as presented the Frank Bill needs a bit of tweeking, only a bit however.

1. Remove the Sports league opt outs.
2. Specify the State opt outs apply only to businesses based in the United States.
3. States cannot prevent residents from doing business with licensed companies NOT based in the United States.

The tax issue is really moot, I do not know if companies pay taxes in Antigua or not, however, businesses can ‘choose’ where to pay taxes when filing a 1040 for income, you can exempt income that you paid tax on in another country and vice versa. A foreign company can exempt income made in the U.S. if taxed in another jurisdiction. This applies to all companies in all countries, not just gaming companies in Antigua.

obg

[Legislurker]

I think the best way to solve 1-3 is to put plain language out that says no US laws affect remote gaming in jurisdictions where it is legal as long as there are age verification and fraud prevention practices in place. The WTO issue isn't about legality or illegality but market access. A poker and/or sports REGULATORY scheme is peripheral to the entire WTO system. Im sure Antigua would listen and reciprocate some as would the UK/EU. Resolving the WTO goes beyond any bill put out so far, so advocating for them as a way to appease the WTO is plain wrong. Safeandsecure has bought some language that will go in the bill they really want, Im sure of that much. If Antigua succeeds for us it wont be by getting "poker" an exemption.

[Russ Fox]

[ QUOTE ]
A foreign company can exempt income made in the U.S. if taxed in another jurisdiction. This applies to all companies in all countries, not just gaming companies in Antigua.

[/ QUOTE ]

A company doing business in the United States, foreign or domestic, must file a corporate tax return. You cannot exempt yourself from the Tax Code. A US C-corporation files Form 1120; a foreign corporation files Form 1120-F.

Various tax treaties do exempt different types of income from different countries. Additionally, most countries allow a credit for taxes paid to other countries. However, there is no tax treaty between the US and Antigua. An Antiguan company doing business in the United States is required to file a form 1120-F with the IRS.

-- Russ Fox

[JPFisher55]

But a company operating an online gambling website in a foreign company is not doing business in the United States. When you gamble at their website, you are doing so under the jurisdiction of the country in which the site is located. You agree to this condition. All sites terms and conditions state this condition. So the foreign website is not making any income in the United States.
The United States has applied the Wire Act to foreign websites and is the only country to any of its laws to a foreign website. The United States may attempt to apply its tax laws to a foreign website, but it is alone if it does so. Even the UK does not apply its new 15% tax to a foreign gambling website; only one based in the UK. Some websites left the UK to avoid the tax. This diffference is the crux of the whole WTO dispute with Antiqua.