Excuse me? What you are saying here is that Poker is unbeatable under some interpretations of some state tax codes NOW.

Unfortunately, Federal law can't change state tax codes. So this has nothing to do with passing or not passing a federal law.

Skallagrim

This is all about journalists who are too lazy to do any real legal research. "Everyone knows online poker is illegal, right? So why investigate further? Just print it."

Actually, the majority of the legal community familiar with the issue believes that the current POKER-ONLY sites are not in violation of any valid, applicable state or federal law.

I know and have spoke with the lawyers who represent both FTP and Stars. They have no problem with this amendment because they are quite confident that they can demonstrate in any fair court that they have broken no US laws. FWIW, I agree with them.

But looking up facts, especially legal facts, takes time and actual brain power. It seems to me most journalists these days are very reluctant to apply either.

Skallagrim

not yet, but how this bill looks now will really look absolutely nothing like it will if it ever gets to the Presidents desk (well not really but you know what I mean, it will go through a ton of changes). There will be a special committee that will be set up to make regulations and I'm sure rakeback will be discussed/debated. The only way I can see rakeback staying is if every single person has access to it and not this ******ed system that full tilt has now. I personally think a very likely outcome is that Fulltilt follows what Stars does with their VIP program. Which is like rakeback, open to everyone, is not a confusing process for novice or naive players.

That's great, they may not have a choice though. Especially WRT to rakeback. Rakeback in it's current state is basically a rake reduction for some players and not others. That is likely to be made illegal.

It's an extremely valid concern, and it shocks me how PPA time and again sweeps it under the rug. It makes me question how farsighted they are about the whole thing.

The current tax laws are completely idiotic in some states, and not much better in other states. At least right now you can comply with the spirit of the law and not bankrupt yourself by complying with the letter of the law. Once legalization passes, many players are going to be presented with humongous tax bills that they can't get away from.

details?

this doesnt affect ppl who file as a pro tho does it?

Your gambling income is the sum of your winning sessions (NOT profits). At best, the sum of your losing sessions is going to be a deduction. This hare-brained scheme never comes out as a wash compared to tax on profits, but in some cases it's horrendously worse.

In New York state, for example, you can only deduct half of your gambling losses when it comes to state taxes. In some states, you can't deduct them at all. If you won $100k in winning sessions and lost $110k on losing sessions, pay your fair share on the $100k of income, plzkthxbai. Pretty much everyone who plays, even the fishes who donate, will have a tax bill.

No, which is the fun part. If you're a productive member of society and only play poker on the side, you get slapped with a punitive tax code. If you make your living from poker, you get a sane tax code, where you actually get to net your winnings and losses.

However, pros shouldn't rest easy either. Good luck getting fish to donate after the first tax season under the new law, when they get to pay sometimes ridiculous taxes for the privilege of losing.

The PPA does NOT sweep this issue under the rug. The PPA has advocated for a fairer tax system for poker players for quite some time. In the pending Senate bill there is a tax provision that simply allows for yearly netting of poker wins/losses (meaning the site reports a net + or - amount for each player to the IRS).

My point was simply this: a federal bill cannot change an unfair state tax code. There are about 10 states with these problematic tax provisions relative to gambling. The laws have to be changed in these 10 states. But that can only be done in those state legislatures. Ohio just changed that provision in its tax code this year, for example, so it can be done.

But its really an irrelevant point when talking about federal legislation.

Unless your real point is that you want to make sure its easy for folks in problem states to violate their state tax laws. Try selling that to any politician anywhere.

Skallagrim

Seems like only the .com sites would have a problem getting a license. The .net sites would seem to be free and clear, so all they have to do is reformulate the .net sites to accept money, as long as the .net and .com sites have maintained separate (USA corporate) structures.

It may not be the perfect system, but it's better than ANY OTHER system...BECAUSE the two legislative bodies, one with equal representation (SENATE) for each state, and one with proportional representation (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) must negotiate with each other to arrive at a compromise decision. That prevents "cities" dense urban areas, or sparesly populated rural areas with diametrically opposed positions and values from dominating the country IN THE LONG RUN. In effect, the long annoying logjam caused by all the various bills, amendments and changing election results, make sure that the final decision will be less extreme than either earlier polarized party or special interest position. In other words, neither extreme will be happy, but the middle 51% can live with the result. THAT is the American way.

The real question is: will Annie Duke take credit for saving the internet poker industry?

No love for KEVMATH who did most of the heavy lifting early in this thread?

As a recreational player this is just more reason to keep playing live.

I hope the PPA does get something worked out with the current tax laws. Because all this work would end up being for nothing since as previously said the fish and recreational players will simply stop playing after there first tax notification letter. Especially since the current tax law goes by session and not YTD.

I predict that if they say PokerStars and Fulltilt are "not allowed to get a license" because they supposedly broke a poorly written jammed onto another bill as an amendment piece of crap law we will see a couple of "new" companies called "PokerStar" and "Fulltilts" or something like that using amazingly similar software.

It's not that hard to create a new company.

Cliffs if US market opens up:

a) PS and FTP don't get allowed in and it will be a mad scramble for top spot, party's merge probably has them sitting pretty to sweep the fish back.

b) PS and FTP get allowed in and rape the market with advertising and a new era of internet poker begins.

c) US only site, aka USA once again ****s over the entire rest of the world.

can we also propose carrying forward losses for x number of years?

tilted by all the "but how much did you lose" idiocy in the thread. "session" is not easily defined.

whats the next step? complaining that you cant carry forward losses for n(x) number of years? if you need longer than 12 months to get in the black, youre probably a loser and should count your lucky stars that you had to pay any tax for any given year.

i just want the same capability as investors and corporations who can do the same thing. i don't even know what you were trying to say in this response.

Why the **** would rakeback be debated? You really see some congressman saying "Also, there's this deal that some players have with the sites that lets them pay less rake. Obviously we've got to get rid of that!" and then all the other congressmen agree "Of course!"

Jeez.. a lot of you just want any reason to complain. When you can't find one, you just bring up unrelated **** or make **** up. We're talking about a federal bill that will license and regulate online poker and a bunch of you are going "But I don't wanna pay my income tax!" or "Don't touch my rakeback!" or "But my state taxes are unfair!"

Sometimes good things happen. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your world view.

so can anyone with 1/2 a brain give me answers to these questions:

1. when will the bill be enacted?
2. what sites will be licensed in the US?
3. will bwarney fwrank ever find out who approved these bownuses?

There is no way Congressmen even know what rakeback is, let alone give a **** about it.

They don't force all credit card companies to offer airline points programs or all grocery stores to offer membership rewards cards.

Are states opting out a concern for you?