[x]

See Where You Rank in New Jersey

  1. Tax court rules that business expenses for professional gamblers can exceed gross receipts from wagers, meaning you could show a loss on your tax return, which could result in a Net Operating Loss. NOL could then be carried back or forward to offset income in those particular years.

    Link to article: http://journalofaccountancy.com/Issu...r/20114684.htm

    There is quite a bit of technical jargon, but the examples at the end of the article help clarify. Also, you might want to provide your CPA with a copy of the article.
    Add hypnotrader to Rail
  2. hmmmm this could be very good...
     
    Add SowersUNCC to Rail
  3. Seems front page worthy to me and definitely worth putting in the poker forums if you haven't already done so.
     1
    Add TheMiltMan to Rail
  4. equal treatment, what a concept. good news

    of course, there are no gamblers here, just poker players. well, they might gamble too

    agrii post this in poker place (whatever it's called). and the "Not USA" forum. sigh
    Add norcaljeff to Rail
  5. hoorayyy
    4
    Add jalman1 to Rail
  6. Government discouraged activities usually don't get favorable treatment. I'm not surprised it came about because of a legal challenge. This case kind of highlights how the tax code is used to control behavior, not raise needed revenue.
    Add Willywoo to Rail
  7. I have been doing this for years for my clients knowing that this could be justified.........

    Apparently Sowers, your CPA wasnt doing this :-)
    Add CPAEvil to Rail
  8. boooooooooooooooom ... me likes... instantly fwd'ed to my accountant
    Add ImaLuckSac to Rail
  9. This is relatively old news and the effects are negligible. Basically all it means is that you can show a loss to the extent of your business expenses, NOT poker losses. So whatever your total non-wagering business expenses (travel, lodging, internet, etc.) are is the maximum loss that you could show. For some live pros with significant travel this could be a fairly large number but for the most part it is not terribly significant, especially for a primarily online player. It certainly doesn't put us on equal footing with any other business as by the far the most significant expense for poker players, buyins or wagering losses, are not included in this allowable loss. We still have a lot of work to do for equal tax treatment.
    Add phatcat to Rail
  10.  
    Originally Posted by phatcat View Post

    This is relatively old news and the effects are negligible. Basically all it means is that you can show a loss to the extent of your business expenses, NOT poker losses. So whatever your total non-wagering business expenses (travel, lodging, internet, etc.) are is the maximum loss that you could show. For some live pros with significant travel this could be a fairly large number but for the most part it is not terribly significant, especially for a primarily online player. It certainly doesn't put us on equal footing with any other business as by the far the most significant expense for poker players, buyins or wagering losses, are not included in this allowable loss. We still have a lot of work to do for equal tax treatment.

    It's a start though since most gambers lose the govt. doesn't want to lose billions of dollars giving away a free deduction.
    Add realpokerpro to Rail
  11.  
    Originally Posted by realpokerpro View Post

    It's a start though since most gambers lose the govt. doesn't want to lose billions of dollars giving away a free deduction.

    Gamblers who mostly lose would have a hard classifying themselves as professional as opposed to recreational gamblers anyway. On the other hand, legitimate professional poker players can very easily have a losing year somewhere along the line (much more than just their business expenses) just as any other profitable business can also have a losing year from time to time. But the poker player has no ability to offset that loss against past or future profits as any other business does which is where the significant tax inequality exists.
    Add phatcat to Rail