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 08-04-2010, 11:44 AM   #1126
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

They are correct (except for sports betting which wouldn't be allowed), HR 2267 is for all gaming. Casino and poker, though states can choose to opt out of whatever games they choose.
cardboardvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 01:06 PM   #1127
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlitzPlayer View Post
how will they be verifying ages?




have alot of friends worried about this.
Pretty safe to assume that the answer to your question is "completely accurately" IMO.
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 01:20 PM   #1128
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shinzilla View Post
I've been under the impression that this bill concerned online poker and no other forms of gambling. From what I've been reading in NYT and other mainstream newspapers, they seem to believe that you'd be able to play blackjack, roulette, etc. and do sports betting if this law passed. They've got their information wrong, correct?
The House bill that just passed a committee vote (the Barney Frank bill) covers both casino gambling and poker, but not sports betting. The Senate bill (the Menendez bill) covers just skill games, including poker.

The final bill is undetermined, but the important thing is that it will include poker sites.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 01:31 PM   #1129
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
I can't say for sure they would leave If they don't get a license but it's possible that sites like ps/ft would pull out of the US if denied a license.

Right now they have legal opinions that say they aren't violating any US laws,IF they don't get license and still allowed US players they could no longer say they aren't violating US law.

I just wonder if they might have to leave (if clearly unlawful) or it might effect their standing in places where they are licensed or wish to be.
I would be absolutely shocked if Pokerstars continued to operate in the U.S. if they were denied a license. They are much too reputable a company to operate in a country with an explicit licensing and regulation regime as an unlicensed provider, imo.

I'm really not concerned with that, though. I think they will get a license, as will FT, and deservedly so. But even if they don't, I think there would have to be creative ways for them to sell their U.S. facing business or perhaps reincorporate under a new umbrella with a U.S. partner. FT, in particular, since the majority of their business is U.S., would make a pretty easy sale to someone like Wynn that wants to instantly enter the market as a leading force.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 01:58 PM   #1130
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I thought the bill made it so that unlicensed providers cant sell their software or business or anything to someone who was a licensed provider? Or more accurately that someone wishing to be licensed couldnt purchase such a business or such software.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:24 PM   #1131
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
I thought the bill made it so that unlicensed providers cant sell their software or business or anything to someone who was a licensed provider? Or more accurately that someone wishing to be licensed couldnt purchase such a business or such software.
Close. The bill disqualifies a site from getting a license if they have purchased the software, business or mailing list of a site that has engaged in illegal gambling activity.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:36 PM   #1132
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So there's no way that a Wynn or someone would do this because they'd be tied up in court for years proving FT/PS weren't engaging in illegal activity. If it didnt need a court battle, Stars/FT would just enter the market.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:59 PM   #1133
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
So there's no way that a Wynn or someone would do this because they'd be tied up in court for years proving FT/PS weren't engaging in illegal activity. If it didnt need a court battle, Stars/FT would just enter the market.
Yeah, I wasn't aware of that language. I agree with what you are saying above. Stars/FT will just have to prevail in the licensing process.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 05:41 PM   #1134
piranha
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,239
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So I've been thinking about this:

Couldn't there be a provision for states that opt-out where players that have filed as professional gamblers and payed their taxes for say 3 years be allowed to stay in their state and continue playing poker? It should be obvious at that point that these people aren't degenerate gamblers and they're willing to pay taxes to the state so where's the harm in continuing to let them play?
piranha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 06:46 PM   #1135
kmd107
old hand
 
kmd107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,250
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piranha View Post
So I've been thinking about this:

Couldn't there be a provision for states that opt-out where players that have filed as professional gamblers and payed their taxes for say 3 years be allowed to stay in their state and continue playing poker? It should be obvious at that point that these people aren't degenerate gamblers and they're willing to pay taxes to the state so where's the harm in continuing to let them play?
I doubt this would happen or they would care what you did for the last three years.
kmd107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:08 PM   #1136
BlitzPlayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,532
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So I asked a few people this but I would like a few more opinions. Do you think this will take effect by the end of the year?
BlitzPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:09 PM   #1137
Curtlow
old hand
 
Curtlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: At best buy getting a new keyboard.
Posts: 1,383
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So whats the latest on this bill getting revised, passed through, or whatever they were going to have done by the end of today?
Curtlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:12 PM   #1138
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtlow View Post
So whats the latest on this bill getting revised, passed through, or whatever they were going to have done by the end of this legislative session in December?
FYP.

Nothing this week. Congress is in recess until September.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:16 PM   #1139
Curtlow
old hand
 
Curtlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: At best buy getting a new keyboard.
Posts: 1,383
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
FYP.

Nothing this week. Congress is in recess until September.
Oh my bad. I listened to 2+2 podcast and I thought they were supposed to do something by today but I see that was for last week.
Curtlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:23 PM   #1140
BlitzPlayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,532
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
FYP.

Nothing this week. Congress is in recess until September.
so you dont think it will be done by december
BlitzPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:26 PM   #1141
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlitzPlayer View Post
so you dont think it will be done by december
Not at all what I said or meant. I think there is about a 25% chance of a bill passing by the end of this legislative session this year. Just my guess.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 07:32 PM   #1142
BlitzPlayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,532
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

What was the % chance that people thought this bill would be passed anyway? Never really kept up with it
BlitzPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 08:59 PM   #1143
piranha
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,239
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmd107 View Post
I doubt this would happen or they would care what you did for the last three years.
I doubt it would happen either but if there's a chance it would, then I think it's worth pursuing. And I do think they would care because it shows a track record of being a profitable self-employed individual playing poker and not a degenerate gambler.
piranha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 09:48 PM   #1144
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piranha View Post
I doubt it would happen either but if there's a chance it would, then I think it's worth pursuing. And I do think they would care because it shows a track record of being a profitable self-employed individual playing poker and not a degenerate gambler.
I think there is zero chance of a two-tier system in any state. I don't even know how a state would track a list of residents permitted to play.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 10:21 PM   #1145
piranha
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,239
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I think there is zero chance of a two-tier system in any state. I don't even know how a state would track a list of residents permitted to play.
I believe you but why?
piranha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 10:43 PM   #1146
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piranha View Post
I believe you but why?
There are several reasons. One is that there is no mechanism in the opt-out process for a state to provide Treasury with a list of individuals authorized by that state to play online poker on licensed sites from within that state. Another is that states have no reason at all to go through that effort.

Yet another is the fact that a state is likely to decide either to participate or not to participate. They are either in or out of each area (poker, casino gaming, etc.). One more issue is figuring out how to add or subtract players from this list year after year.

As I believe the state would have to pass a law implementing all this, it seems extremely unlikely.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 10:50 PM   #1147
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I think he's asking why you guys cant push to have this feature included in the opt out clause, not whether its possible as the bill is currently structured.

Obviously i dont think there is support for this within Congress, but he's asking to amend the bill.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 11:40 PM   #1148
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
I think he's asking why you guys cant push to have this feature included in the opt out clause, not whether its possible as the bill is currently structured.

Obviously i dont think there is support for this within Congress, but he's asking to amend the bill.
We don't write the bills. We tell lawmakers what we want, but they have to incorporate it. I can't imagine any of them adding this to the opt-out. Also, I can't imagine any state deciding to opt out because they don't wish to participate, yet then going through the trouble of maintaining a list of authorized players.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 01:16 AM   #1149
piranha
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,239
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
There are several reasons. One is that there is no mechanism in the opt-out process for a state to provide Treasury with a list of individuals authorized by that state to play online poker on licensed sites from within that state. Another is that states have no reason at all to go through that effort.

Yet another is the fact that a state is likely to decide either to participate or not to participate. They are either in or out of each area (poker, casino gaming, etc.). One more issue is figuring out how to add or subtract players from this list year after year.

As I believe the state would have to pass a law implementing all this, it seems extremely unlikely.
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to politics but why would the treasury need the list? The IRS and state would have the list because the "exempted" players would have filed taxes for at least three years.

I don't think the states would necessarily have to do anything. Someone (maybe the state, maybe not) would give the poker sites the list of exempted players and the only thing the state would do is collect taxes. I do think they have some incentive to do this because a lot of professional players will be leaving their state and paying taxes somewhere else.

Adding or subtracting players could be handled through an application or license process where the applicant is granted a temporary playing status until they're able to prove they can be profitable for an extended period of time. I doubt many of the recreational players would take the time to go through the process although it's possible some of the degenerate gamblers would. Depending on how strict the application requirements were though, you could probably weed out most of the degenerates.
piranha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 01:28 AM   #1150
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Wink Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Add to the fact that not many players would support this, except for the select few professionals that would benefit. Almost like letting in more sharks, but keeping out fish
cardboardvox 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 05:06 AM.


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