Quote:
Originally Posted by LedaSon
Well, technically, my statement was correct, but my recollection was wrong.
I accurately described my recollection. I also said it might be wrong. And I was, at least, according to this one article. Wish we could find the whole statement. The problem is, I know I have read statements that said that Party and Dik**** got in trouble for offering sports betting. That is a clear contradiction of another point made in the Pokernews article you linked. Perhaps the other sources I read had it wrong, or perhaps Pokernews didn't have the full story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedaSon
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedaSon
If they fail, we would expect that winning American players will hear from the IRS. If they dont, its unclear if that will become part of a settlement. We dont know if it has begun, but as part of the settlement agreements on the domains, both PS and FTP agreed to a monitor to insure all documents were kept in tack.
They have your name and address which if you provided correct information will be enough for the IRS to track you down. Hopefully you reported that income on your tax return or were not a winner!
Under the terms of the agreement the sites signed with the DOJ to get their domains back, the DOJ already has access to the records. There does not seem to be anything in the agreement that would prevent the DOJ from sharing those records with the IRS.
This is also an incorrect statement. You can view the agreement here. The Monitors (who is a third party) purpose is solely to insure that records are preserved and that FTP is following the agreement. We see no provision in the agreement for the Monitor to transmit information to the DOJ which would normally require a legal action. Moreover, it is unclear when or if this Monitor has yet to have been put in place at either company, although it may have happened.
It is not as cut and dried as either of us have made it out to be.
I would point out that the part of the agreement that requires FTP to maintain all records is a separate part from the part of the agreement that provides for monitors. The agreement provides that the monitors must be independent of FTP but does not provide that they must be independent of the DOJ. The part of the agreement regarding monitors does provide that the monitors have access to all records and staff necessary for the monitors to do their job. While the duties and responsibilities of monitors are limited by the agreement, the scope of information transfer by the monitors to the DOJ is not. However, I'm going to agree that it is not likely that the monitors will be a conduit of information to the IRS regarding tax liability of US players.
When I mentioned the agreement providing DOJ access to records, I wasn't talking about monitors, I was talking about preserved records. My wording "the DOJ already has access the records" was misleading. I incorrectly gave the impression that the DOJ could look at whatever they wanted to right now. What I should have said is that the agreement provides that the records are preserved, and so
with apporpriate permission from a court the DOJ could look at them and pass them to the IRS.
I was respondng to your seeming assertion that only if FTP failed would the records potentially come to the attention of the IRS. My point was that the terms of the agreement preserve the records, so, they could be subpoenaed or searched even if FTP survives.