I agree with the previous posters..... POTY, givng you the trophy right now.

Do you think the IRS hedged their book with Pokershares to get a flat outcome on all final tableists or did they run their position and sweat it out watching the live coverage.

In a regular banking account in this (almost) zero interest environment? Probably around 1%/year, so less than $10k before tax season.

But nobody would do that.

so if you are heads up vs a euro friend you are better off making a deal and letting him win

i enjoy bringing you enjoyment

This is actually false.

Americans have what is called the standard deduction, which means you can deduct $6,300 from your income, but if you do that you cannot deduct other business expenses. In addition, there is a personal exemption, which means if you are filing as a single person, you get an automatic $4,050 exemption. That means if you make under $10,350, you pay 0 taxes. In addition, you will likely get various benefits that result in you paying a negative income tax due to being well below the poverty line.

Roughly 30% of Americans pay a negative income tax, and roughly 20% pay 0 income tax. Of course that means that people who make millions end up picking up the slack and you see absurd numbers such as here.

Whats stopping someone from saying they were 90% staked by someone in canada, so they send the money to their friend in canada (no taxes in Canada) and then they give the full amount (less their cut) to you. They could probably just drive it over the border.

lol yeah

I'm not saying rich people don't have the right to complain about anything, obviously, but I'd gladly take their 40% effective tax rate on their millions in exchange for my 10% on my peanuts.

Zachvac wrote, Actually, it's true: What Doug was referring to is the gambling loss. Internal Revenue Code section 165(d) prohibits gambling losses in excess of wins. This has been held by courts to hold to both professional and amateur gamblers. Let's assume I'm a professional gambler, and have a gambling loss (net) of $50,000 and have business expenses of $5,000. The $50,000 gambling loss is lost for tax purposes. The $5,000 of business expenses are allowed (this is a result of the Mayo decision of a few years ago) and those $5,000 of expenses can result in a Net Operating Loss.

That if I lose money in my business I can take the loss while a professional gambler who has a losing year can't take his gambling loss isn't fair. Unfortunately, neither life nor taxes are fair.

-- Russ Fox

The same things that stop us from other forms of tax evasion:
a) we think it's wrong to cheat the government and society
b) we know that nobody messes with the IRS because we might end up in jail

I think we all know that tax evasion is a thing but there's no reason to talk about that in this thread.

I like Australia's approach to it:

"Gamblers' winnings in Australia are not taxed. There are 3 main reasons for that: Gambling is not considered a profession, it's treated as a hobby or recreational activity. The Australian government views gains from gambling activities not as income, but as a result of good luck."

There would have to be a significant change in our Government to ever reach a point where they would consider any form of gambling a profession.

Funny we have such a negative attitude to gambling despite having the most slot machines per person in the world.

how does lamb only take 500k? is it because he's already in a high tax bracket from previous scores?

wow lol with the tax USA live MTTs have to be unbeatable for the average person or even very good player over the long term.

fun

I thought that might be the case too.

I thought NBA players had the same type of deal. Players who play for Miami have 1/2 of their game checks with no income tax but road games are taxed in those states. I must be wrong.

Some counties and cities also tax income.

Mason

Shouldn't there be a cap of exactly one time that the govt. can tax a certain dollar as income?

If a US citizen legitimately sold off all their action to backers of countries that have a tax treaty with US and no gambling tax, would they have to pay any tax on the winnings before being able to pay their backers?

Right, but I think it's quite a grey area when it comes to what makes someone a professional player, what makes it their primary occupation, etc., so I'm sure there are a number of pros who don't pay tax.

I'd be pretty surprised if they couldn't. But then again, I was pretty surprised some years ago when I heard that Americans couldn't.

The same thing that stops (or doesn't stop) people from evading taxes in hundreds of other ways. But the "benefit" of this plan is that you involve two people in your scheme, with the added bonus of bringing undeclared money across the border.

So I guess the correct answer would actually be - that it's a really dumb idea.

Polk should've used his parents to get citizenship in the so called united kingdom* He would save loads of money, surely?

'Getting your donger out' is illegal here though - if it means what I think it means.

*lower case intended!!

Aussies will still pay 30% on most gambling winnings in the US (usually on amounts over 1k) as Australia does not have a tax treaty in place. Funny considering all the sucking up it does and the strategic alliances it has in place.

?

Here is a look at the total taxes paid in the main event using USA federal tax brackets. Also a look at how a flatter payout would lower the taxes by over $443,000. A savings of over $400 per cashing player! Cutting 1st to 6 mil also reduces that ugly $3.4 mil gap between 1st and 2nd to only $1.5 mil. Only 8 players receive less money while 950 players walk with more money! Which payout would you prefer?

If you think about it, it's actually better, because lower effective taxes for poker would encourage more intelligent people to take it up as a profession, hurting the overall ecosystem. Besides, the government is going to put that money to good use with some mind-blowing programs in 2018.

You are making the completely flawed and unsubstantiated assertion that people act logically and/or in their own best financial interest.

US players should work out arrangements where they lose all their yearly profits to UK players in the end of December, and then win it all back minus a nominal commision in the beginning of January.

Pretty sure I'm just telling jokes on the internets.