Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   100k to win... (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35867)

Danzig 05-01-2010 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi (Post 642520)
tax free too


lol

i seriously doubt that.

Danzig 05-01-2010 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Bank (Post 642552)
Bob Costas wears a piece?


just for men i think.

2Hot4TV 05-01-2010 06:01 PM

I would love to have to pay the taxes on that bet.

My broke a s s would be doin the CHA CHA CHA.............

eajinabi 05-01-2010 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 642553)
lol

i seriously doubt that.

Why wouldnt it? Its less than 600 times the base wager.

Danzig 05-01-2010 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi (Post 642573)
Why wouldnt it? Its less than 600 times the base wager.


because he won a contest to begin with-he didn't bet his own money. but i wish i had the problem of figuring it all out.

eajinabi 05-01-2010 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 642575)
because he won a contest to begin with-he didn't bet his own money. but i wish i had the problem of figuring it all out.

Probably only has to pay taxes on the 100k

Travis Stone 05-01-2010 06:17 PM

Very cool!

Port Conway Lane 05-01-2010 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi (Post 642586)
Probably only has to pay taxes on the 100k

Actually I think he will only have to pay taxes on gambling income of 800k and prize money of 100k.

shanej974 05-01-2010 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie (Post 642459)
I'd seriously go with Line of David instead of Super Saver.

Another gem from the board genious. Every time you post, this should be the response. :zz:

2Hot4TV 05-01-2010 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi (Post 642586)
Probably only has to pay taxes on the 100k

I would plan on paying on the whole thing. Nice problem to have.

AeWingnut 05-01-2010 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanej974 (Post 642603)
Another gem from the board genious. Every time you post, this should be the response. :zz:

I think he was joking

eajinabi 05-01-2010 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane (Post 642600)
Actually I think he will only have to pay taxes on gambling income of 800k and prize money of 100k.

I dont understand how he needs to pay taxes on the 800k he recieved from CD. He/NBC placed a 100k win bet which which ended up being only 8 times the amount of the base wager. IRS comes into place only if its 600 times.

I can see that he would need to pay taxes on the 100k prize money. Whatever it is, the guy did not have to put a single dime of his own money to win all that. Great win for him.

Port Conway Lane 05-01-2010 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi (Post 642613)
I dont understand how he needs to pay taxes on the 800k he recieved from CD. He/NBC placed a 100k win bet which which ended up being only 8 times the amount of the base wager. IRS comes into place only if its 600 times.

I can see that he would need to pay taxes on the 100k prize money. Whatever it is, the guy did not have to put a single dime of his own money to win all that. Great win for him.

The irs cannot track the type of income you are describing but when he gets a 1099 on the 100k that is a huge red flag.
Gambling income is supposed to be reported no matter how small. Most people don't report it and the irs doesn't persue small potatoes.

Merlinsky 05-01-2010 06:34 PM

Good news for him is someone at the IRS undoubtedly saw him win it. Enjoy that complimentary audit.

smuthg 05-01-2010 06:36 PM

IMO he should pay taxes on the 90,000.00 from NBC as ordinary income (which I believe with his $900k win puts him in the top bracket of I think 35%), I think he can treat the first $10k from NBC as a gift (and tax free)... So, once you get that tax situation squared away, I think he's paying 20% on the winning from the track (which is better than his ordinary income rate of 35%)... unless of course he's got $900k in losing tickets:):) The best thing for this guy is that he lives in TX with no state income tax, so winning $800k on national TV shouldn't matter to his home state.

Port Conway Lane 05-01-2010 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smuthg (Post 642622)
IMO he should pay taxes on the 90,000.00 from NBC as ordinary income (which I believe with his $900k win puts him in the top bracket of I think 35%), I think he can treat the first $10k from NBC as a gift (and tax free)... So, once you get that tax situation squared away, I think he's paying 20% on the winning from the track (which is better than his ordinary income rate of 35%)... unless of course he's got $900k in losing tickets:):) The best thing for this guy is that he lives in TX with no state income tax, so winning $800k on national TV shouldn't matter to his home state.

That sounds right.

PeteMugg 05-01-2010 08:57 PM

I thought if it was over a certain amount the IRS would step in to get their share regardless of how much was wagered. I'd bet they will be greeting him at the windows.

Port Conway Lane 05-01-2010 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteMugg (Post 642732)
I thought if it was over a certain amount the IRS would step in to get their share regardless of how much was wagered. I'd bet they will be greeting him at the windows.

I'm not positive but I always thought that they (the tellers) only ask for ID if it is a reportable winner (over $600 on a wager that paid 300-1 odds.) If the amount collected is over 5k they remove 20% to immediatly pay the irs.

In this guys case he brings the suitcase (or check) home and then calls his tax consultant to see how much to pay the irs quarterly for the remainder of the year so he doesn't incur any interest penalties.

Indian Charlie 05-01-2010 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanej974 (Post 642603)
Another gem from the board genious. Every time you post, this should be the response. :zz:

Ugh. Another freakin tard.

Do I really need to spell out everything I say so that idiots don't misconstrue my meaning?

Here goes.

I was not saying Line of David had a better chance of winning the race than Super Saver. What I was saying, in admittedly far too few words, was that hey, Line of David just beat Super Saver while Super Saver had EVERY possible chance to pass him in the stretch, and he could not get by him.

If you are going to place a bet for $100k on one horse, why not take it on a horse that just outgamed your horse AND is also what, 2-3 times the price?

Obviously Super Saver was the more likely winner, but was he really more than three times likely to win?

The way I see it, there were three possible approaches to playing that $100k bet.

1. Play the most likely winner.
2. Play the longest shot in the race (which would have worked beautifully in the Bluegrass 10k contest).
3. Play the horse with the best possible payout that has the most likely chance of winning.

I believe most people would go with the first approach. The second approach would be reasonable for a race that is a complete clusterfugg, like the Bluegrass was.

The third approach is going to usually be the most sensible one, and I personally didn't think Super Saver was some sort of mortal lock that could not lose. Hence, why not take a flyer on Line of David?

Indian Charlie 05-01-2010 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanej974 (Post 642603)
Another gem from the board genious. Every time you post, this should be the response. :zz:

By the way, I'm not sure what genious means. Did you mean genius? Or maybe genie-ous? Like I have some sort of blink my eyes, grant your wish type powers?

I'm going to blink you a brain. Let me know how you like it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.