Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2010, 10:15 AM   #376
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me View Post
Even so, with the current tax code for gambling it will be unbeatable if someone is paying the taxes the way they're supposed to be paid which considers a "session" the net win/loss for each table from when you sit down to stand up. If that's the case then each table online would be a session which drives up the wins/loss column making it so that people living in the states where you can't deduct losses get hammered. Seems for them to make this work they would have to change the tax code as well.
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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:22 AM   #377
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream View Post
Whats this all about then?
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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:23 AM   #378
shipontilt
self-banned
 
shipontilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: I think I'm Sam Hurd.. Larry Hoover
Posts: 12,211
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
The bill definitely doesn't ban rakeback and definitely doesn't create ridiculously high fees that would mandate really high rake or getting rid of rakeback or anything like that.
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.
shipontilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:26 AM   #379
shipontilt
self-banned
 
shipontilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: I think I'm Sam Hurd.. Larry Hoover
Posts: 12,211
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
The major sites have reported to the PPA that so long as the total deposit tax stays under the 10% figure they do not anticipate any major changes in rake or their rakeback and rewards policies. The new cost to them will be offset by lower costs elsewhere and by renewed growth in the market.

Skallagrim
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.
shipontilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:36 AM   #380
Dima2000123
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,498
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
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
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.
Dima2000123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:39 AM   #381
LucidDream
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LucidDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: flippin it on em!!
Posts: 10,703
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dima2000123 View Post
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?

Last edited by LucidDream; 07-29-2010 at 10:45 AM.
LucidDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:47 AM   #382
Dima2000123
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,498
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream View Post
details?
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.

Last edited by Dima2000123; 07-29-2010 at 10:52 AM.
Dima2000123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 10:49 AM   #383
Dima2000123
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,498
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream View Post
this doesnt affect ppl who file as a pro tho does it?
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.
Dima2000123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:00 AM   #384
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:09 AM   #385
Phleggm
adept
 
Phleggm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,036
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkyj View Post
Ignore the intentionally (if that is a problem) ... doesn't this seem like an odd (unconstitutional?) law?

E.g. like passing a law saying "any company that has ever broken law X can never do business in the USA again". E.g. "let X be commit the crime of bribery anywhere in the world" (common practice in many foreign jurisdictions). Would such a law be constitutional?
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.
Phleggm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:22 AM   #386
Phleggm
adept
 
Phleggm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,036
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanDyer View Post
boy the us government

nice senate where a bunch of flyover states dictate to the cities....
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.
Phleggm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:23 AM   #387
esox lucius
centurion
 
esox lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 148
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

The real question is: will Annie Duke take credit for saving the internet poker industry?
esox lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:24 AM   #388
Phleggm
adept
 
Phleggm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,036
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by As armas View Post
A great TY to Engineer, Skall, Papas, and the PPA. Great work! The politics of this is pure gold. The leader of the tea party caucus, Ms. Bachmann, doesn't think you at home should have the choice to play online poker. You don't deserve that option in life as you do the best you can to pursue happiness. The governement needs to protect you from yourself. That is the America she believes in. Next time you see her railing against gangster government, about how the government is out of control and gutting your freedom, REMEMBER THIS VOTE. Talk is cheap biitch. The republican party does not believe in personal freedom, 18 nays to 7 yays. That big gubment democrat party does, 34 yays to 4 nays.

/end rant speaking the truth
No love for KEVMATH who did most of the heavy lifting early in this thread?
Phleggm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:34 AM   #389
nuisance
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
nuisance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Of Heaven, North of Hell
Posts: 11,644
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

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.
nuisance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:23 PM   #390
Cloverfield
journeyman
 
Cloverfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manhattan for now.
Posts: 374
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

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.
Cloverfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:33 PM   #391
Quad_me's
veteran
 
Quad_me's's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Deucegame's life coach
Posts: 3,061
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

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.
Quad_me's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:56 PM   #392
kwansolo
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,985
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
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
can we also propose carrying forward losses for x number of years?
kwansolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 12:59 PM   #393
ThisKid$Tough
old hand
 
ThisKid$Tough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 1,817
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

tilted by all the "but how much did you lose" idiocy in the thread. "session" is not easily defined.
ThisKid$Tough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:01 PM   #394
ThisKid$Tough
old hand
 
ThisKid$Tough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 1,817
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwansolo View Post
can we also propose carrying forward losses for x number of years?
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.

Last edited by ThisKid$Tough; 07-29-2010 at 01:07 PM.
ThisKid$Tough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:06 PM   #395
kwansolo
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,985
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisKid$Tough View Post
whats the next step? complaining that you cant carry forward losses for n(x) number of years?
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.
kwansolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:25 PM   #396
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shipontilt View Post
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.
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!"
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:29 PM   #397
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

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.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:38 PM   #398
spankedtwice
old hand
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,728
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

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?
spankedtwice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:41 PM   #399
mmbt0ne
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mmbt0ne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Coach Bud Bandwagon
Posts: 22,077
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shipontilt View Post
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.
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.
mmbt0ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 01:50 PM   #400
What?
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 393
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
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.

Are states opting out a concern for you?
What? is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive