Quote:
Originally Posted by deucesevenoffsuit
Unless the language about player liability for a 50% tax is eliminated, I will write my Congressman and Senators urging them to oppose this bill, and will recommend that all of my friends do the same. If this is implemented it will be much, much worse than the status quo.
Yes, PPA opposes all player penalties. I have been quite adamant about this, especially within PPA. PPA put out a press release demanding its exclusion (it's not part of the Frank bill, so it didn't come up in yesterday's discussion).
IMO, this provision was tossed in as an afterthought to answer a question some will ask on what is being done to deter play on unlicensed sites. It's a foolish proposal in many ways.
Winning players won't have much liability at all, while losing players likely won't pay it (and probably won't even know about it -- it's not like this will be its own line on the 1040 tax form). Furthermore, the IRS wouldn't know when winning players made their rare deposits. Most winning players would have net deposits of $0, as winning players withdraw more than they deposit (by definition). Furthermore, this proposal would erode compliance with payment of other taxes. Those owing it could just decide they should keep quiet about the whole online poker thing altogether.
So, when directed at the players, the proposal fails as an enforcement mechanism. Things like this also alienate the player base, costing backers of the legislation key support. Adding even tougher enforcement mechanisms to this bill could possibly turn it into a ban on poker in opt-out states. Well, why would poker players from those states fight to ban poker in their home states? If anti-poker types wish to ban poker, let them pass their own legislation.