Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 07:50 PM   #676
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverAnAce View Post
What did US law have to do with it? Will a US bank give the USAO my records without a warrant or my permission? I paid my taxes if thats what you mean. Maybe I didn't want the DOJ invading my privacy of where I spend my money.

IMO Neteller did what they said they wouldn't. They also refused customer support during the time they held my money. They also tried to trick me into an agreement that I wouldn't sue them before they released my money.

I've already replied to much on Neteller in this thread. I apologize to all.
I would not want to be a player who didnt pay their taxes on Full Tilt and Stars winnings and has not declared them as foreign accounts if this passes. Get to an accountant and get yourself clean PRONTO if this fits your situation.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 07:54 PM   #677
Icebeast26
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 84
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Just previewed the members of the Committee on Ways & Means for the upcoming bill........

Looks pretty favorable for us w/ 26 Democrats vs 15 Republicans on the committee and also a Democratic Chair. I'm not a Democrat, but it seems that our results are more favorable when they hold the votes.

This makes us 60-40 fav's going to the flop, right?

Last edited by Icebeast26; 07-28-2010 at 07:56 PM. Reason: Add a comment
Icebeast26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 07:56 PM   #678
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zophar View Post
He was there during the intitial floor discussions and IIRC seemed to be a proponent, I was surprised to see no vote listed as well.
They sometimes have to go to other votes or hearings.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:03 PM   #679
KrazyOranges
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 106
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by PTR
The 7th amendment was from Congressman John Campbell of California, and provided several criteria. 1) All facilities of licensees that operate and/or accept wagers must be located in the U.S. 2.) States and tribes must have parallel authority. 3) Bettors must be at least 21 years of age. 4) Age and residence of the bettor must be verified. 5) Odds of winning at each game must be posted online. 6) The identities of legal and illegal gambling sites must be verified by the treasury in order for banks to prohibit certain financial transactions. 7) Owners must meet licensing requirements. 8) Sites must provide loss limits for each bettor. This amendment was passed.
Is this going to prevent 18-20 yo's from continuing to play poker?
KrazyOranges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:14 PM   #680
Mordan
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

anyone know of Bob Etheridge's viewpoints, he is the NC U.S. Rep
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:16 PM   #681
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icebeast26 View Post
Just previewed the members of the Committee on Ways & Means for the upcoming bill........

Looks pretty favorable for us w/ 26 Democrats vs 15 Republicans on the committee and also a Democratic Chair. I'm not a Democrat, but it seems that our results are more favorable when they hold the votes.

This makes us 60-40 fav's going to the flop, right?
Id be floored if we cant get a bill out of this committee. We have some important changes that need making though, thats the tougher part.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:22 PM   #682
2DMB2LIV
adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,011
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

About the 8% deposit tax, is that on the players every time they make a deposit?

For example, let's say I travel 2 months a year to France and have an account on FTP.fr since I can't play on the .net site (thank you, french gvnmt)

I obviously don't leave that part of my BR to rot for 10 months on the site, so I withdraw it every time I come back to the US and redeposit it here.

Does that mean that every single time I withdraw to redeposit the money I've already paid taxes on, I have to pay that 8% tax again??!
2DMB2LIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:23 PM   #683
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokeraddict View Post
Everybody seems to be ignoring that the amendment says they could not break state or federal law. States have a variety of gambling laws and WA State specifically outlaws online poker. Nevada law states anyone that takes a bet must have a gaming license. Illinois has a similar law. Accepting action from residents of those states can't be described as an accident.

By processing payments for residents in those states, in violation of state laws, the rooms are in violation of the UIGEA. Even if you say poker is not gambling Washington state law says it is. By accepting players there a poker room can't plead ignorance. The PPA seems to have a different opinion than this but to me it seems obvious. The poker rooms are taking illegal action from several states and the provision includes that one who has accepted wagers in violation of state law cannot be granted a license.

I could certainly see rooms going the route of Party and Dikshit and just paying a massive fine to avoid prosecution but I don't see how in the world these rooms would be allowed to get licensed with B&M players like Harrah's and MGM around, especially since the bill as it stands currently specifically excludes these rooms.

Edit: If FTP and PS truly think they have good legal advice that they are operating legally then they have a chance but the WA state law is pretty clear. I guess we will see. This is all speculation and of course still has quite a few votes and a presidential signature before it happens. It could be changed 1000 times before that happens.

Of course these site's would have another option. Change the structure or outright sell. Obviously their businesses are worth a fortune to someone wanting to get in on the land grab.
There are plenty of responses to this concern. The first is that Stars and Tilt will be dealing with the treasury lawyers. The Treasury lawyers will not be expert in the poker related laws of all 50 states. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the federal government's lawyers will begin and end their inquiry as to whether a site violated a federal law.

The second answer to this is that states cannot assert jurisdiction (successfully) over conduct outside of their physical boundaries in the same way that the federal government can. Washington state cannot argue that a poker site based in the Isle of Man violates state law because it is accessible in Washington any more than they could argue that a site based in California violates Washington state law because it is accessible in Washington.

The last point is that UIGEA did not criminalize any payment processing other than for gambling that was already illegal under preexisiting state or federal law. so the "accepted or made payments," language gets you right back to points one and 2--stars and tilt didn't violate UIGEA by processing payments unless poker was already illegal before UIGEA.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:23 PM   #684
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

There are a few articles about this. BusinessWeek has one at http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-gambling.html.

Digg: http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_House...e_Online_Poker
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:37 PM   #685
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2DMB2LIV View Post
About the 8% deposit tax, is that on the players every time they make a deposit?

For example, let's say I travel 2 months a year to France and have an account on FTP.fr since I can't play on the .net site (thank you, french gvnmt)

I obviously don't leave that part of my BR to rot for 10 months on the site, so I withdraw it every time I come back to the US and redeposit it here.

Does that mean that every single time I withdraw to redeposit the money I've already paid taxes on, I have to pay that 8% tax again??!
The deposit tax is a site tax, not a player tax. Sites are not allowed to deduct this from deposits.

I imagine site taxes will be based on net deposits. In other words, if someone deposted $500, withdrew $200, then deposited $300, I believe the tax would be based on $600, not $800.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:39 PM   #686
2DMB2LIV
adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,011
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
The deposit tax is a site tax, not a player tax. Sites are not allowed to deduct this from deposits.

I imagine site taxes will be based on net deposits. In other words, if someone deposted $500, withdrew $200, then deposited $300, I believe the tax would be based on $600, not $800.
Thank god...and thank you for fighting for our rights all this time.
2DMB2LIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:51 PM   #687
LeChuck
centurion
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 155
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...ittee-41-22-1/

i can't really tell from this if they are going to allow non us players :/
LeChuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:58 PM   #688
allabout
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 80
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Great job PPA and everyone closely involved!

I'm not sure I understand why people even care about whether Stars and Tilt can get a license at this point. If they say they support the bill, which they do, that is a good sign for us. Then if everything passes it is up to them to worry about actually getting licensed. The poker world would survive without Stars and Tilt and they're 'big boys', let them worry about themselves! (Although I understand that their support of this bill is a good for the cause and the PPA.)
allabout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:59 PM   #689
adi
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,738
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeChuck View Post
http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...ittee-41-22-1/

i can't really tell from this if they are going to allow non us players :/

i'm curious about this as well.
adi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 08:59 PM   #690
Mordan
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeChuck View Post
http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...ittee-41-22-1/

i can't really tell from this if they are going to allow non us players :/
TE quoted that they still back the Bill after the amendments....they pay a hefty price for legal counsel....I'd assume its safe to say they feel this will not be a problem....I'd say their legal team is better than whoever wrote this PTR article....just a guess.
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:03 PM   #691
kwansolo
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,985
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

wtf?

The 12th amendment was brought by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and stated that internet sites would be forbidden from allowing people who are delinquent on child support payments from gambling on their sites. This was a major sticking point from states that already imposed such rules from casinos with jackpots. Violating sites would lose their license for failure to comply. This amendment also passed.
kwansolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:11 PM   #692
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwansolo View Post
wtf?

The 12th amendment was brought by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and stated that internet sites would be forbidden from allowing people who are delinquent on child support payments from gambling on their sites. This was a major sticking point from states that already imposed such rules from casinos with jackpots. Violating sites would lose their license for failure to comply. This amendment also passed.
This amendment was amended before it passed, and is subject to additional negotiation. We don't know the text of the Frank amendment to the Bachman amendment, but the gist of it was to change the amendment to one that required the sites to prevent people from playing if the sites were first notified that someone has a delinquent support obligation.

as amended, it is probably a good thing.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:28 PM   #693
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwansolo View Post
wtf?

The 12th amendment was brought by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and stated that internet sites would be forbidden from allowing people who are delinquent on child support payments from gambling on their sites. This was a major sticking point from states that already imposed such rules from casinos with jackpots. Violating sites would lose their license for failure to comply. This amendment also passed.
Clarification was added for this amendment. A state court, federal court or state agency has to notify the Treasury that someone is delinquent in their child support payments before they are added to the "self exclusion list", which gets them excluded from all licensed sites.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:30 PM   #694
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

For summaries on each of the passed amendments, see this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...2267-a-840228/
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:44 PM   #695
[x] swanny
formerly Nepa
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stuck @home
Posts: 2,149
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Does anyone know the breakdown of number of Democrats vs. Republicans supported this bill in cmte?
[x] swanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:55 PM   #696
jamzfive
journeyman
 
jamzfive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 255
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lottery Larry View Post
Gerlach (PA) voted Aye, so that was good....
I noticed that he also voted Aye on Amendment 18, which gutted the entire bill and replaced it with verbiage that basically just strengthened UIGEA. Not sure what that was about.

jb
jamzfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 09:58 PM   #697
jamzfive
journeyman
 
jamzfive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 255
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepa View Post
Does anyone know the breakdown of number of Democrats vs. Republicans supported this bill in cmte?
34 Dems, 7 Reps Aye
4 Dems, 18 Reps Nay
jamzfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:08 PM   #698
blueodum
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,295
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

What, if anything, is going to stop sites licensed in other jurisdictions from continuing to serve the US market?
blueodum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:09 PM   #699
oldbookguy
veteran
 
oldbookguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icebeast26 View Post
Just previewed the members of the Committee on Ways & Means for the upcoming bill........

Looks pretty favorable for us w/ 26 Democrats vs 15 Republicans on the committee and also a Democratic Chair. I'm not a Democrat, but it seems that our results are more favorable when they hold the votes.

This makes us 60-40 fav's going to the flop, right?
Committee memberships are based on party numbers, right now the dems have a decent advantage but come novenmer it will be close with a good chance the GOP takes over in Jan.

obg
oldbookguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:25 PM   #700
John Mehaffey
Formerly Pokeraddict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,924
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueodum View Post
What, if anything, is going to stop sites licensed in other jurisdictions from continuing to serve the US market?
The fact that it will be easy to deposit on licensed sites using Paypal type processors or maybe even cash cards bought at gas stations. The unlicensed sites will have processor issues, maybe even worse than now. If you could go to the local casino or lottery office and pick up your cashout now would you wait weeks for a check that may or may not bounce? Also deposit ease for fish should help with game quality of the licensed sites if they rake isn't so bad it kills everyone.

Edit: It looks like no credits card deposits will be allowed.

Last edited by John Mehaffey; 07-28-2010 at 10:30 PM.
John Mehaffey 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 05:08 AM.


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