How will part-time players survive a regulated poker site? - Page 6

DeadMoneyDad · #51 10-29-2007, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Willfully failing to report taxable income is a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many cases where not reporting non-taxable income that could affect your taxes or prove assets can lead to serious trouble.

So just assuming that since you consider the income a non-taxible event for example a 10k+ deposit in the foreign poker account even though you may have never gambled will cause you problems, although there is no income.

D$D

Robin Foolz · #52 10-29-2007, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There are many cases where not reporting non-taxable income that could affect your taxes or prove assets can lead to serious trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure what you're saying here. perhaps if you could reword.

[ QUOTE ]
So just assuming that since you consider the income a non-taxible event for example a 10k+ deposit in the foreign poker account even though you may have never gambled will cause you problems, although there is no income.

[/ QUOTE ]

a 10k deposit into x poker site is just that, a 10k deposit into x poker site. nothing illegal about it, unless it's explicitly illegal in your state/country/province. maybe i misunderstand what you're saying, sorry.

DeadMoneyDad · #53 10-29-2007, 07:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are many cases where not reporting non-taxable income that could affect your taxes or prove assets can lead to serious trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure what you're saying here. perhaps if you could reword.

[ QUOTE ]
So just assuming that since you consider the income a non-taxible event for example a 10k+ deposit in the foreign poker account even though you may have never gambled will cause you problems, although there is no income.

[/ QUOTE ]

a 10k deposit into x poker site is just that, a 10k deposit into x poker site. nothing illegal about it, unless it's explicitly illegal in your state/country/province. maybe i misunderstand what you're saying, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets stick to the foreign bank account you have in the form of a named but often unnumbered off shore poker accounts. Not reporting that asset if combined amounts to over $10,000.00 is a crime. It is an IRS regulation/law.

Form 99-22.1

This is true even if it generates no income at all.

Zero payment or original discount bonds are another type of asset that generate no income but can create income that may or may not be taxible.

There are literally thousands of ways to generate income, many of which are very hard for the IRS to track, some they don't even try to capture.

D$D

Lottery Larry · #54 10-30-2007, 01:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But since online "sessions" are not defined, and clearly not the same as a live session (where you sit at one table with x amount and leave with y amount) I think you would be in a very good position to argue that just netting for the year is OK - SO LONG AS YOU REALLY HAVE THE RECORDS TO BACK UP YOUR STATED AMOUNTS, whatever form you keep them in.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be safer to consider online sessions by game type, by day, as the lowest level that a session should be defined at. Netting by year seems to me to be an invitation for a visit.

Robin Foolz · #55 11-01-2007, 08:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Lets stick to the foreign bank account you have in the form of a named but often unnumbered off shore poker accounts. Not reporting that asset if combined amounts to over $10,000.00 is a crime. It is an IRS regulation/law.
D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

can you tell me where in the internal revenue code this requirement appears? if it appears there, i would assume it would clearly lay out for whom does it apply and for what specific purpose and for what assets. i would appreciate it.

assuming your statement is true, imo poker accounts are not banks in the eyes of the government anyway. not even close.take for instance paypal. it can be argue that it has more "banking" functionality than a poker account/balance yet the federal government has made it clear paypal is not a bank; hence, why it's not regulated at the federal level as such. if paypal is not a bank, which has a bunch of bank-like features, then neither is a poker account/site.

oldbookguy · #56 11-01-2007, 09:12 PM

it is not specific, 'BANK' account offshore, any holding offshore in an account, even if you are only a signator and not the funds owner.

Read your 1040, there is a section and it tells you the code section and refers you to the IRS publication.

That or go to www.IRS.gov and LOOK and READ it.

Awww, click:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4261.pdf

obg

Robin Foolz · #57 11-01-2007, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it is not specific, 'BANK' account offshore, any holding offshore in an account, even if you are only a signator and not the funds owner.

Read your 1040, there is a section and it tells you the code section and refers you to the IRS publication.

That or go to www.IRS.gov and LOOK and READ it.

Awww, click:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4261.pdf

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

hi, the form you cited starts off with "you may be required..." which clearly means some people are required and some people aren't. if it meant everyone is required, it would have said so. hence why i'm trying to find out the relevant statute in the IRC that applies to the ""who is required and who isn't required" topic. btw, i found no IRC references in the form you cited.

oldbookguy · #58 11-01-2007, 09:28 PM

That was merely information, get the form mentioned and the booklet to go with it on the IRS web site.

obg

mrick · #59 11-09-2007, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The whole "sessions" thing is an IRS regulation, not a law. They can use it to try and invalidate (and thus lower) your claim of losses if you dont have "sessions" properly recorded. This only happens if there is an audit.Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't even a regulation. It is something postulated by a CPA that interpreted the documentation requirements.

For non pros - losing transactions go on Sch A. Isn't that silly. Can you imagine grandma in Las Vegas writing down every pull of the slot and putting losing ones on Sch A and grossing up income with the winners.

Here's the law:

“Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions.”

There is only two choices - don't net or net. And you are talking transactions.

If the IRS lets you net all your blackjack play, then they consider it one transaction - strictly speaking.

Practically, no can be expected to abide by the law. You have to compromise it.

So you can group by session with each session being when you change games or tables like one CPA has suggested. Or if you only play live games, maybe each trip becomes a session. Or transaction. Clearly a tournament is a single transaction.

The IRS instructions talk about gambling winnings from... and list various games. Maybe you show your net by game. Maybe by casino.

I would separate out any W-2G and report it separately so the IRS can find it. The rest I would net on some rational basis - but not by year. You want to be able to see some winners and some losers.

All said and done, the tax law is not only unfair, it isn't really possible for most people to comply. It's dumb.

That's why I don't get bent out of shape when someone talks about not being audited. Those that say I don't worry, I pay my taxes - probably don't pay them correctly and probably should worry.

They are not the only ones. Go to Las Vegas and watch all those people plowing thousands of dollars into various wins and losses. They don't report. They go home a bit poorer than they came and they don't worry about carrying a notebook listing every bet and paying taxes on the winning bets. Who thinks they should?

mrick