Interesting guest on Bluff Poker Radio last night

They had I. Nelson Rose from Wittier Law School in Costa Mesa, CA last night. He is recognized as one of the leading authorites on gambling law in the world.

He stated that he thought online poker in the US would end soon but come back around 2010 licensed and regulated by the US goverment. He then said that he thought it would be taxed 25 percent. How in the heck would you be able to make any money paying that and with the rake added in?

He also said that there are talks in the works in states where there are licensed casinos(California, Nevada, New York, etc.) where the casinos can start their own online poker sites where you can play legally if you reside in their state. For example, the Commerce Casino in LA would be able to start their own online poker site just for residents of California. The problem again there is that he is hearing the sites would tax the player at a 25 percent rate.

I'm interested in hearing any thoughts on his comments.

[kassdog]

I don't think the whole casino making a site and only people living in that state can play makes any sense. I mean since I live in IL does that mean I wouldn't be able to play on an Indiana casinos site. Its to complex.

[yeahright]

I don't think he knows what he's talking about, frankly.

I don't think he's crazy for thinking online poker will come to an end, but this bull about being taxed at 25% is horrible.

The tax motivations for the US government relate to taxing the casino's.

Players, even right now, are suppose to pay taxes on their winnings now.

Billy Baxter already won a supreme court case over his poker winnings being treated differently than regular income.

What's the basis for internet gambling winnings being taxed differently than how B&M winnings are taxed today?

Rose is a smart guy, but I think his theory on how it will be taxed is garbage.

[TimTimSalabim]

I would assume he's talking about a casino tax, which is paid by the casinos based on their revenues, not a player tax.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume he's talking about a casino tax, which is paid by the casinos based on their revenues, not a player tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be so, but the same question would apply. Why would B&M gambling be taxed differently than the internet?

So MGM would pay LESS in taxes on internet gambling than from there casino in Vegas????

Either way it makes no sense.

[Python49]

umm... isnt 25% less than what we're already paying? or does this mean you get taxed 25% to play and then if you have any profits left after that you still are paying a 30-35% income tax.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume he's talking about a casino tax, which is paid by the casinos based on their revenues, not a player tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be so, but the same question would apply. Why would B&M gambling be taxed differently than the internet?

So MGM would pay LESS in taxes on internet gambling than from there casino in Vegas????

Either way it makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be confusing casino tax with corporate income tax. 25% is much higher than the 6.5% casino tax that land-based casinos currently pay in Nevada. But keep in mind that casino taxes (in Nevada at least) are based on revenues, not profits. So since online casinos have relatively almost no overhead, they would require a much higher tax rate to have an equivalent tax burden to the B&Ms.

[YoAdrian]

THe US is loosing big busniess.

Do like the UK/England and regulate/Tax it.

Poker is exploding here right now and the UK jsut made it even easier to get a license (trying to get the online casinos to setup and be taxed there)

Pretty smart move.

They have a lot to say in the european union so this will without a doubt secure online poker in europe.

Now if the US did the same they would make a lot of cash and regulate it.

Would be win win for all!

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he knows what he's talking about, frankly.

I don't think he's crazy for thinking online poker will come to an end, but this bull about being taxed at 25% is horrible.

The tax motivations for the US government relate to taxing the casino's.

Players, even right now, are suppose to pay taxes on their winnings now.

Billy Baxter already won a supreme court case over his poker winnings being treated differently than regular income.

What's the basis for internet gambling winnings being taxed differently than how B&M winnings are taxed today?

Rose is a smart guy, but I think his theory on how it will be taxed is garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe he is right. I always thought it would be in the 25 percent range. It's just going to be tough to make money with that, in addtion to the rake.

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume he's talking about a casino tax, which is paid by the casinos based on their revenues, not a player tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, he specifically said it is going to be a player tax.