![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Tax Court Ruling can be read here...
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...ER.TCM.WPD.pdf Key point is that casual gambler was allowed to NET casino jackpot W-2G with additional slot play. This does not mean you net losses with wins through the year as a casual gambler. ...from ruling petitioners entered the casino with $500 and took home $1,600 of winnings, the amount of gambling income which petitioners should have reported on their 2005 return was $1,100 ($2,000 jackpot winnings less $500 brought to the casino for gambling and less $400 taken from the jackpot for additional gambling) rather than $2,000 as determined in the notice of deficiency. KEY HERE IS THEY ONLY NEEDED TO REPORT $1,100 and NOT $2,000 W-2G AMOUNT ...also Drawing an analogy to the recovery of a capital investment, this Court has held that a casual gambler’s gross income from a wagering transaction should be calculated by subtracting the bets placed to produce the winnings, not as a deduction in calculating adjusted gross income or taxable income but as a preliminary computation in determining gross income This would be very beneficial to people who only take the standard deduction or who live in states who have a state income tax which does not allow gambling loss deductions. To me there should be no difference if a person substitutes casino with racetrack in the above ruling. Last edited by SundaySilence : 01-04-2010 at 03:28 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() If I read that correctly, they got pinned because they forgot to report it, and then when they tried to report it, they tried to take the losses as an itemized deduction, when they took the standard already.
But yeah, this goes to the point of, lets say a P6 player. If said player puts a 4k ticket in, and the P6 hits and pays $2,500, he is forced to report that on his 1040 becuase of the 600/2 threshold. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() This one is classic...
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...ca.sum.WPD.pdf I was looking for the Hockman v. Commissioner one but I can't find it... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I read your Calif. case and that guy got screwed for not having proof/documentation of losses. I found Hockman at http://www.taxesandpoker.com/uploads...man_v_Comm.pdf |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() If that decision has the force of law it certainly should carry over to horseracing. It was predicated on what they came in with and what they left with. But, what if it were the Oaks/Derby Double, or I never leave my house?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those that matter don't mind, and those that mind, dont matter." Theodore Seuss Geisel "Dr. Seuss" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The better view is that a casual gambler, such as the taxpayer who plays the slot machines, recognizes a wagering gain or loss at the time she redeems her tokens. We think that the fluctuating wins and losses left in play are not accessions to wealth until the taxpayer redeems her tokens and can definitively calculate the amount above or below basis (the wager) realized. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955). For example, a casual gambler who enters a casino with $100 and redeems his or her tokens for $300 after playing the slot machines has a wagering gain of $200 ($300-$100). This is true even though the taxpayer may have had $1,000 in winning spins and $700 in losing spins during the course of play. Likewise, a casual gambler who enters a casino with $100 and loses the entire amount after playing the slot machines has a wagering loss of $100, even though the casual gambler may have had winning spins of $1,000 and losing spins of $1,100 during the course of play. [Fn. ref. omitted.] |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|