New Regulations For Tax Withholding Passed

[VigorsTheGrey]

http://live.drf.com/nuggets/38935-in-major-victory-for-horseplayers-tax-revisions-formally-approved

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/223790/regulations-on-pari-mutuel-withholding-adopted-by-irs

Full Text Download
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-20720.pdf

[incoming]

I think EMD4ME just received a huge raise....:jump::)

[lamboguy]

this just put the ten percenter's out of business which is great for the game.

the questions i would have are if this new ruling will take people out of the w-p-s pools and into the jackpot bets.

some offshoot really good news will be if you are a resident of Massachusetts where they are holding 6% for a state tax without deductions and that will probably end with this.

all in all this is a big boost for the racing industry if they decide to handle it right and not introduce more exotic jackpot wagers with higher takeout.

[castaway01]

This is actual, legitimate great news.

[biggestal99]

and new ID rules ONE ID and a W9 Form.

The news gets better and better for the player.

Allan

[chiguy]

As a clerk who does the tax forms I cannot tell you how delighted this makes me. It has always been such a strange thing for a customer to be happy on one hand with the score but unhappy on the other end because of the reporting. It also appears now that I dont need to see the SS card? If that is correct then this is really great news.

[biggestal99]

As a clerk who does the tax forms I cannot tell you how delighted this makes me. It has always been such a strange thing for a customer to be happy on one hand with the score but unhappy on the other end because of the reporting. It also appears now that I dont need to see the SS card? If that is correct then this is really great news.

They can use the SS card as ID but not required.

The W9 takes care of the TIN.

Allan

[biggestal99]

As a clerk who does the tax forms I cannot tell you how delighted this makes me. It has always been such a strange thing for a customer to be happy on one hand with the score but unhappy on the other end because of the reporting. It also appears now that I dont need to see the SS card? If that is correct then this is really great news.

and way less action coming your way. if you have a 2 box tri (12 bucks wagered)the tax man only see see ya at 3600 or better. if it pays 2K on the 12 buck box tri--no tax forms needed.

Allan

[JustRalph]

So how much money does this move into the exotic pools ? Percentage wise does this make a player move their bets around from the wps pools?

I would think there would be a great incentive to do that

[VigorsTheGrey]

So under the new regs, they(?) ...are anticipating an additional 1 billion to be wagered.....wow! And it took them this long to figure that out...? Maybe they knew it all along and it was a matter of convincing uncle Sam...so how will this change the way you bet...? Or how can we make this work to our advantage....? I know I will be making a lot more $1 super and trifecta bet instead of dime supers...how about you...? What are some of the bet structures that will take more action now...?

[showonly]

So under the new regs, they(?) ...are anticipating an additional 1 billion to be wagered.....wow! And it took them this long to figure that out...? Maybe they knew it all along and it was a matter of convincing uncle Sam...so how will this change the way you bet...? Or how can we make this work to our advantage....? I know I will be making a lot more $1 super and trifecta bet instead of dime supers...how about you...? What are some of the bet structures that will take more action now...?


Just at a glance I would say:

Biggest winner: Treasury


I hope your correct but I think the chance's of dime super bettors increasing their total play by 10x is pretty close to zero.

Biggest Losers: Tax preparers

[bucksboy]

Please confirm - a $100.00 Pic 5 bet has no reporting up to $30,000.00 ??
I this correct ??

[VigorsTheGrey]

Just at a glance I would say:

Biggest winner: Treasury


I hope your correct but I think the chance's of dime super bettors increasing their total play by 10x is pretty close to zero.

Biggest Losers: Tax preparers

You say Treasury, I was trying to figure out why this is so...? How does uncle Sam benefit more from this...? If it is so good for the betters, doesn't that mean that uncle Sam will be getting a whole lot LESS...?

[Si2see]

Once passed you all need to make sure to structure your tickets properly, and basically the exact opposite of how it is done now.

For instance if I play a superfecta now, 9 times out of 10 i am playing it for a .50 score, so I play the ticket for a dime 5 times.

Once this is in affect I would now need to play the ticket for .50 once.

Jason

[Track Collector]

Excellent news for lots of players.

Although it only affects a very tiny percentage of players, they now need to allow players who file as a business to carry over wagering losses from one year to the next, which is allowable with more traditional businesses.

For those who do not know, here is how the current inequity works for those involved in a gambling business:

Say in 2016 one's net wagers result in a $5,000 loss.
Say in 2017 one's net wagers result in a $5,000 win

In a "traditional" business the $5,000 loss in 2016 could be carried over to offset income in 2017, so the business would have no tax liability in 2017 (from the wagering activity portion) because the entire amount was offset.

A Gambling business under the same scenario would not be able to carry any losses over from 2016 and thus have a tax liability on the entire $5,000 wagering profit amount from 2017. As someone who we all know might tweet: "So Unfair!"

[showonly]

You say Treasury, I was trying to figure out why this is so...? How does uncle Sam benefit more from this...? If it is so good for the betters, doesn't that mean that uncle Sam will be getting a whole lot LESS...?


Taxes on gambling winning are not being lowered.

If you took the amount of revenue generated from Pari Mutel players and subtracted what it's costs the IRS to enforce compliance in the current system. I think it would be shocking.

Remember that most people who gamble lose and the tax on that is ZERO.

The biggest plus is keeping your standard deduction in tact. Remember the deduction of gambling losses comes on the miscellaneous line that is after adjusted gross income is calculated. Which lead to a very deceptive number.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Please confirm - a $100.00 Pic 5 bet has no reporting up to $30,000.00 ??
I this correct ??

It appears to me that your example requires paperwork by the $5,000 threshold for reporting. (I am not an accountant or tax expert)

This new reg will certainly reduce paperwork triggered by the old 300x and $600 limits, but it still appears the $5,000 threshold is in play. I'm not sure about the lottery, but I thought there was a $10,000 threshold for casino winnings and sports wagers. Considering the difference in takeouts, you would think the lottery and horse racing would have higher thresholds to exceed before the tax man swooped down to keep you honest....:confused:

[spiketoo]

AndyC! Lil help here plz.

What happens if I hit 10 P5 consols (ha!) for $600 on a $248 ticket? Hey, it could happen...

[AndyC]

...the questions i would have are if this new ruling will take people out of the w-p-s pools and into the jackpot bets.....

If a player is a winning player in the W-P-S pools I doubt that they would change their MO much.

some offshoot really good news will be if you are a resident of Massachusetts where they are holding 6% for a state tax without deductions and that will probably end with this.

I think the withholding will remain but obviously the number of withholdings will drop considerably.

[AndyC]

As a clerk who does the tax forms I cannot tell you how delighted this makes me. It has always been such a strange thing for a customer to be happy on one hand with the score but unhappy on the other end because of the reporting. It also appears now that I dont need to see the SS card? If that is correct then this is really great news.

If a person fills out a W-9 you won't need a SS card.

[AndyC]

So under the new regs, they(?) ...are anticipating an additional 1 billion to be wagered.....wow! And it took them this long to figure that out...? Maybe they knew it all along and it was a matter of convincing uncle Sam...so how will this change the way you bet...? Or how can we make this work to our advantage....? I know I will be making a lot more $1 super and trifecta bet instead of dime supers...how about you...? What are some of the bet structures that will take more action now...?

Who will be wagering this additional 1 billion? I haven't heard anybody say that they are now going to up their betting substantially. If they were going to do that they would have done that to get rebates.

[thaskalos]

Who will be wagering this additional 1 billion? I haven't heard anybody say that they are now going to up their betting substantially. If they were going to do that they would have done that to get rebates.

No one is going to wager the additional billion...because this new law-revision will mainly affect the below-$5,000 winnings...which suffered no IRS cash deduction in the first place.

[AndyC]

Remember that most people who gamble lose and the tax on that is ZERO.

The biggest plus is keeping your standard deduction in tact. Remember the deduction of gambling losses comes on the miscellaneous line that is after adjusted gross income is calculated. Which lead to a very deceptive number.

With the way gambling is taxed, you could lose and still owe money because of the gambling.

The other shoe will be dropping soon with the new tax law. It is quite possible that gambling losses will be eliminated as an itemized deduction. And if it does stay as a deduction the higher standard deduction will actually hurt quite a few players.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Who will be wagering this additional 1 billion? I haven't heard anybody say that they are now going to up their betting substantially. If they were going to do that they would have done that to get rebates.

I don't understand it either Andy, it is just what the media on the news is reporting, that an additional 1 billion is expected to be wagered because of these changes...

"The NTRA spearheaded the lobbying drive to get the revisions considered by IRS and the Treasury over the last two years. In a statement, Alex Waldrop, the organization’s president, called the revisions “among the most meaningful regulatory advances made by our industry in decades.” The association estimated that handle might grow by $1 billion in the next year as a result of the revisions."

[AndyC]

AndyC! Lil help here plz.

What happens if I hit 10 P5 consols (ha!) for $600 on a $248 ticket? Hey, it could happen...

It means you will be buying drinks. No paperwork or withholding needed.

[thaskalos]

I expect the divorce rate to go down by at least 10%...now that the horseplayers won't have to confess to their wives that they lost back all the money that they won on those "signers" that they had to report to the IRS.

[Rollingpk3]

does this go retroactive to jan 1 or will w-2gs from earlier in the year still need to be reported?

[Dahoss9698]

Churn baby churn!

[SG4]

does this go retroactive to jan 1 or will w-2gs from earlier in the year still need to be reported?

All W2G's from earlier this year will still need to be reported :ThmbDown:

[VigorsTheGrey]

"United Tote, the provider of pari-mutuel tote services to more than 150 racing operations including Churchill Downs Racetrack, has implemented the necessary technological changes to begin processing wagers and payouts that will benefit horseplayers around the world. The positive changes will come into effect Thursday." Source: Churchill Downs.

So does this mean we should check with the track we are betting on to see if they use United Tote...?

So that no matter which OTB you bet from, as long as the home track has UNITED TOTE, it applies..?
Or does the OTB need to be UNITED TOTE as well...?

[AlsoEligible]

"United Tote, the provider of pari-mutuel tote services to more than 150 racing operations including Churchill Downs Racetrack, has implemented the necessary technological changes to begin processing wagers and payouts that will benefit horseplayers around the world. The positive changes will come into effect Thursday." Source: Churchill Downs.

So does this mean we should check with the track we are betting on to see if they use United Tote...?

So that no matter which OTB you bet from, as long as the home track has UNITED TOTE, it applies..?
Or does the OTB need to be UNITED TOTE as well...?


The facility you're wagering at would need to be using United Tote to benefit from the new rules. If you're at a Maryland OTB (which use AmTote), and are betting on Churchill (a United Tote track), you'll still be stuck with the old rules for right now.

As ADWs go, TwinSpires and XpressBet are both compliant as of today, and TVG is expecting to be ready tomorrow. No word on NYRA Bets yet.

EDIT: Paulick says TVG and NYRA Bets are now compliant.

[AltonKelsey]

Folks with say a net profit of 10k under the new law and none were 300-1 on the TOTAL BET, so no irs forms.

They bet with a single online site. Records are kept

Are they thinking they don't have to report the winnings at all. ?

[showonly]

Folks with say a net profit of 10k under the new law and none were 300-1 on the TOTAL BET, so no irs forms.

They bet with a single online site. Records are kept

Are they thinking they don't have to report the winnings at all. ?


This is not a direct lowering of taxes on gambling winnings. As in any case if you choose not to report taxable income it is tax evasion.

[showonly]

For those of you who did not suffer a loss of your standard deduction by needing to offset gambling losses on your return or had money withheld due to the $5000 threshold. This change will not directly help you. This is not an OK to not pay taxes on net gambling winnings. That is called tax evasion.


There may be an influence on some or all social security recipients who W2-G's negatively effected that I am not aware of.

[olddaddy]

Do the old tax laws stay in effect for everything in 2017 prior to 9/28?

[showonly]

Do the old tax laws stay in effect for everything in 2017 prior to 9/28?


yes

[showonly]

What has happened is a true cost basis has been applied to the old REPORTING rules and the 5k rule has been eliminated. The direct taxes on net gambling winning have not been lowered. This will very positively impact players with w2-g's over 50 or 60k by retaining their standard deduction.

[thaskalos]

What has happened is a true cost basis has been applied to the old REPORTING rules and the 5k rule has been eliminated. The direct taxes on net gambling winning have not been lowered. This will very positively impact players with w2-g's over 50 or 60k by retaining their standard deduction.

Has the $5,000 withholding rule been eliminated? The way I understood the rule-change...the old $5,000 rule is still in affect...if the player receives a 300-1 return on his total investment.

[AndyC]

What has happened is a true cost basis has been applied to the old REPORTING rules and the 5k rule has been eliminated. The direct taxes on net gambling winning have not been lowered. This will very positively impact players with w2-g's over 50 or 60k by retaining their standard deduction.

The 5K rule was not eliminated and the "true cost basis" is used to determine the 300-1 barrier and to determine the net win on a bet. It will have minimal effect on retaining a standard deduction.

[ReplayRandall]

Has the $5,000 withholding rule been eliminated? The way I understood the rule-change...the old $5,000 rule is still in affect...if the player receives a 300-1 return on his total investment.

The 5K rule was not eliminated and the "true cost basis" is used to determine the 300-1 barrier and to determine the net win on a bet. It will have minimal effect on retaining a standard deduction.

Sec. 31.3402(q)-1 Extension of withholding to certain gambling
winnings.

(iii) Any other wagering transaction (as defined in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager:
(A) Exceed $5,000; and
(B) Are at least 300 times as large as the amount of the wager.

(2) Total proceeds subject to withholding. If proceeds from the
wager qualify as winnings subject to withholding, then the total
proceeds from the wager, and not merely amounts in excess of $5,000,
are subject to withholding.
(c) Definitions; special rules--(1) Rules for determining amount of
proceeds from a wager--(i) In general. The amount of proceeds from a
wager is the amount paid with respect to the wager, less the amount of
the wager.
(ii) Amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and
jai alai. In the case of a wagering transaction with respect to horse
races, dog races, or jai alai, all wagers placed in a single parimutuel
pool and represented on a single ticket are aggregated and treated as a
single wager for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. A
ticket in the case of horse races, dog races, or jai alai is a written
or electronic record that the payee must present to collect proceeds
from a wager or wagers.
(iii) Amount paid with respect to a wager--(A) Identical wagers.
Amounts paid with respect to identical wagers are treated as paid with
respect to a single wager for purposes of calculating the amount of
proceeds from a wager. Two or more wagers are identical wagers if
winning depends on the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the same event
or events; the wagers are placed with the same payer; and, in the case
of horse races, dog races, or jai alai, the wagers are placed in the
same parimutuel pool. Wagers may be identical wagers even if the
amounts wagered differ as long as the wagers are otherwise treated as
identical wagers under this paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A). Tickets purchased
in a lottery generally are not identical wagers, because the
designation of each ticket as a winner generally would not be based on
the occurrence of the same event, for example, the drawing of a
particular number.

[Track Collector]

Sec. 31.3402(q)-1 Extension of withholding to certain gambling
winnings.

(iii) Any other wagering transaction (as defined in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager:
(A) Exceed $5,000; and
(B) Are at least 300 times as large as the amount of the wager.

(2) Total proceeds subject to withholding. If proceeds from the
wager qualify as winnings subject to withholding, then the total
proceeds from the wager, and not merely amounts in excess of $5,000,
are subject to withholding.
(c) Definitions; special rules--(1) Rules for determining amount of
proceeds from a wager--(i) In general. The amount of proceeds from a
wager is the amount paid with respect to the wager, less the amount of
the wager.
(ii) Amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and
jai alai. In the case of a wagering transaction with respect to horse
races, dog races, or jai alai, all wagers placed in a single parimutuel
pool and represented on a single ticket are aggregated and treated as a
single wager for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. A
ticket in the case of horse races, dog races, or jai alai is a written
or electronic record that the payee must present to collect proceeds
from a wager or wagers.
(iii) Amount paid with respect to a wager--(A) Identical wagers.
Amounts paid with respect to identical wagers are treated as paid with
respect to a single wager for purposes of calculating the amount of
proceeds from a wager. Two or more wagers are identical wagers if
winning depends on the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the same event
or events; the wagers are placed with the same payer; and, in the case
of horse races, dog races, or jai alai, the wagers are placed in the
same parimutuel pool. Wagers may be identical wagers even if the
amounts wagered differ as long as the wagers are otherwise treated as
identical wagers under this paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A). Tickets purchased
in a lottery generally are not identical wagers, because the
designation of each ticket as a winner generally would not be based on
the occurrence of the same event, for example, the drawing of a
particular number.

In confirmation of this, I have received messages from two different ADWs (including Xpressbet) who as an example indicated that if one wagered a total of $100 in the exact same betting pool, tax would not be withheld nor would it be even reported unless the return were $30,100 or greater.

[AndyC]

Sec. 31.3402(q)-1 Extension of withholding to certain gambling
winnings.

(iii) Any other wagering transaction (as defined in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager:
(A) Exceed $5,000; and
(B) Are at least 300 times as large as the amount of the wager.


In short the only change is that the total bet is considered as the amount of the wager and not just the winning bet as was the previous practice.

[Track Collector]

In short the only change is that the total bet is considered as the amount of the wager and not just the winning bet as was the previous practice.

Doesn't the $5000 have "some" significance?

For Example: A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

[AlsoEligible]

Doesn't the $5000 have "some" significance?

For Example: A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

The only thing that is changing is *how* the 300-1 odds are calculated. It used to be based on only the amount of the winning combination. Now it's based on the total cost of the ticket (or for ADW players, the total amount you wagered into that pool).

So if a $200 Pick 6 with 200 different bets won $5000, the tote would only look at the $1 that won, and apply withholding because 5000-1 is greater than 300-1.

Under the new rules, it looks at the entire $200 ticket. So it would no longer be eligible for withholding, because 5000-200 (or 25-1) is not greater than 300-1. You would have to win $60k on a $200 bet before withholding kicks in...not going to happen very often.

In short, divide the amount you won by the cost of the total ticket. If the answer is 300 or more, you have a signer (only reportable if you won $600 or more, withholdable if $5k or more). If the answer is less than 300, then you have nothing to worry about.

[AndyC]

Doesn't the $5000 have "some" significance?

For Example: A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

$5000 is the winnings threshold for withholding. If you win $4000 there is no withholding. The secondary part of the equation is that the bet must have paid at least 300-1. So a person betting $1000 on a 6-1 to win would win $6000 but the bet paid under 300-1 so no withholding or reporting. Nothing in the law has changed other than how the 300-1 is computed. Before only your winning bet was considered so that a person betting $1000 into a P-6 and getting back $10,000 would be treated as though he had only made a $2 bet. So $2 to win $10,000 pushes all of the IRS buttons for reporting and withholding. Now the entire bet of $1,000 is considered in computing both the $5,000 threshold and the 300-1 threshold. In my example the $5,000 threshold is met but the 300-1 threshold is not meaning neither reporting nor withholding would be required.

[thaskalos]

They would still experience withholding upfront because the ticket is still paying at greater than 300-1 odds.

The only thing that is changing is *how* the 300-1 odds are calculated. It used to be based on only the amount of the winning combination. Now it's based on the total cost of the ticket (or for ADW players, the total amount you wagered into that pool).

So if a $200 Pick 6 with 200 different bets won $5000, the tote would only look at the $1 that won, and apply withholding because 5000-1 is greater than 300-1.

Under the new rules, it looks at the entire $200 ticket. So it would no longer be eligible for withholding, because 5000-200 (or 25-1) is not greater than 300-1.

If the payoff amount doesn't total $5,000...then there is no immediate IRS deduction. Even if the return is 4998-1.

[AlsoEligible]

If the winnings don't total $5,000...then there is no immediate IRS deduction. Even if the return is 4998-1.

Yeah I misread that as $5000 for some reason, have since edited my post.

Again, all that changes is how the 300-1 odds are calculated.

[VigorsTheGrey]

So really we are talking about how the word AND is being interpreted...Meaning over $5000 AND over 300-1 with the total amount wagered into the pool....At least I hope it is this way....but Andy C says that AND really means OR,...

[thaskalos]

What this law means is that 99.9% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What this law means is that 99.99% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

Not necessarily. Only those bettors who aggregate their exotics into wheels, part-wheels boxes, boxes, etc....Do we really know what percentage of exotic tickets are purchased as stand alone cold combos...?

One thing for sure it really helps the deep pocket boys assuming that this $5000 threshold business is wrong...

Still good for all and about time..

[thaskalos]

Not necessarily. Only those bettors who aggregate their exotics into wheels, part-wheels boxes, boxes, etc....Do we really know what percentage of exotic tickets are purchased as stand alone cold combos...?

One thing for sure it really helps the deep pocket boys assuming that this $5000 threshold...
business is wrong...

Still good for all and about time..

Anyone who is capable of hitting a "signer" with a single minimum-bet ticket is a much better player than I am. And as such...I place the odds of his existence at roughly 1000-1. :cool:

[AndyC]

What this law means is that 99.9% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

Bettors betting at the track or OTBs, not using account wagering, should be aware of the "one ticket rule". Your 300-1 threshold will be computed based on what you have bet on one ticket. So if you bet $2 on a superfecta on one ticket and $2 on a superfecta on another ticket and one of the bets wins and pays $602 you will be signing. If however you put both bets on the same ticket you will be clear. The rule prevents a winner from picking up losing tickets and claiming them as there own in order to beat the threshold. There is an exception for account betting because it is clear that both bets were made by the account holder and are allowed to be aggregated.

[thaskalos]

Bettors betting at the track or OTBs, not using account wagering, should be aware of the "one ticket rule". Your 300-1 threshold will be computed based on what you have bet on one ticket. So if you bet $2 on a superfecta on one ticket and $2 on a superfecta on another ticket and one of the bets wins and pays $602 you will be signing. If however you put both bets on the same ticket you will be clear. The rule prevents a winner from picking up losing tickets and claiming them as there own in order to beat the threshold. There is an exception for account betting because it is clear that both bets were made by the account holder and are allowed to be aggregated.

I agree...the bettor will have to do a little thinking in order to fully utilize this new law to his advantage. But these kinds of payouts are seldom garnered by one-way wagers...so this problem will solve ITSELF, in almost all cases.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Anyone who is capable of hitting a "signer" with a single minimum-bet ticket is a much better player than I am. And as such...I place the odds of his existence at roughly 1000-1. :cool:

I just think there are many unsophisticated betters who call out cold combos for one reason or another...I know of one guy where I go that stands with a clerk calling out these cold $1 tickets for some time now...the level of sophistication is sometimes surprising...even with some of my chums...they can't seem to understand or read various part-wheels structures correctly, deeming those "too complicated' :faint:

I wonder if these folks will change or not, as old habits die hard...if the smarts are not there, oh well...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Bettors betting at the track or OTBs, not using account wagering, should be aware of the "one ticket rule". Your 300-1 threshold will be computed based on what you have bet on one ticket. So if you bet $2 on a superfecta on one ticket and $2 on a superfecta on another ticket and one of the bets wins and pays $602 you will be signing. If however you put both bets on the same ticket you will be clear. The rule prevents a winner from picking up losing tickets and claiming them as there own in order to beat the threshold. There is an exception for account betting because it is clear that both bets were made by the account holder and are allowed to be aggregated.

Did I read that a "Rewards Card" that some establishments offer may function as a wager tracking device and therefore qualify under similar ADW rules...?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thank you INCOMING.That was nice of ya:)

Does this suggest that Golfpro is really EMD4ME in disguise...?

[castaway01]

What this law means is that 99.9% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

Bottom line, end of thread

[Track Collector]

$5000 is the winnings threshold for withholding. If you win $4000 there is no withholding. The secondary part of the equation is that the bet must have paid at least 300-1. So a person betting $1000 on a 6-1 to win would win $6000 but the bet paid under 300-1 so no withholding or reporting. Nothing in the law has changed other than how the 300-1 is computed. Before only your winning bet was considered so that a person betting $1000 into a P-6 and getting back $10,000 would be treated as though he had only made a $2 bet. So $2 to win $10,000 pushes all of the IRS buttons for reporting and withholding. Now the entire bet of $1,000 is considered in computing both the $5,000 threshold and the 300-1 threshold. In my example the $5,000 threshold is met but the 300-1 threshold is not meaning neither reporting nor withholding would be required.

I understand how the 300-1 is now computed (and different) from the older law, and that is not relevant to what I am trying to question.

What I am questioning is whether the bolded part is true. For 99.999% of the wagers folks make, the way the 300-1 is now calculated will be the only portion of the new law that impacts them. But, for a microscopic number of instances, the new law is going provide the benefit of no on-the-spot withholding taxes, whereas under the older law, on-the-spot withholding tax would have taken place given the exact same wager and payout.

As I understand it, under the older law the 300-1 and $5000 were OR parameters with regard to withholding. If either condition was met, tax was withheld on the spot.

Under the new law the 300-1 and $5000 are AND parameters with regard to withholding, meaning that both conditions had to be simultaneously met for withholding on the spot to take place.

************************************************** ****

So here is the hypothetical I gave before:

A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

************************************************** *****

The basis of my viewpoint hinges on the whether on not the sentence in red is true. I am not trying to be trivial or argumentative, just saving that if my understanding is correct, there could possibly be another several hundred ticket cashiers over a given year who will be happily rewarded with a full ticket payment rather than one that is reduced up front by a withholding tax. :)

[VigorsTheGrey]

From the DRF article cited in Post 1 of this thread:

"Tax-reporting is currently triggered when a bet pays off at excess of 300-1, when calculated on the base wager, with automatic withholding kicking in if the payoff is also in excess of $5,000. Under the new rules, those triggers would be calculated based on the total amount bet in the pool, and they would therefore have the most impact in exotic pools. For example, if a player bet 48 different combinations in a trifecta pool at a $1 base, the reporting and withholding requirements would not be triggered unless the payoff was in excess of $14,400."

So you can see why I am confused by the $5000 threshold statements...being for the new rules....If so, the then above article has it wrong...

[thaskalos]

I understand how the 300-1 is now computed (and different) from the older law, and that is not relevant to what I am trying to question.

What I am questioning is whether the bolded part is true. For 99.999% of the wagers folks make, the way the 300-1 is now calculated will be the only portion of the new law that impacts them. But, for a microscopic number of instances, the new law is going provide the benefit of no on-the-spot withholding taxes, whereas under the older law, on-the-spot withholding tax would have taken place given the exact same wager and payout.

As I understand it, under the older law the 300-1 and $5000 were OR parameters with regard to withholding. If either condition was met, tax was withheld on the spot.

Under the new law the 300-1 and $5000 are AND parameters with regard to withholding, meaning that both conditions had to be simultaneously met for withholding on the spot to take place.

************************************************** ****

So here is the hypothetical I gave before:

A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

************************************************** *****

The basis of my viewpoint hinges on the whether on not the sentence in red is true. I am not trying to be trivial or argumentative, just saving that if my understanding is correct, there could possibly be another several hundred ticket cashiers over a given year who will be happily rewarded with a full ticket payment rather than one that is reduced up front by a withholding tax. :)

Track Collector...your sentence in red is false.

[Track Collector]

Track Collector...your sentence in red is false.

OK. Thanks for correcting my understanding! :ThmbUp:

[AndyC]

As I understand it, under the older law the 300-1 and $5000 were OR parameters with regard to withholding. If either condition was met, tax was withheld on the spot....T

Your understanding of the old law is incorrect. It has always been "and" and not "or". The same is true for signers at the $600 level.

[ReplayRandall]

In short the only change is that the total bet is considered as the amount of the wager and not just the winning bet as was the previous practice.
Agreed, this is why I posted the lengthy rules explanation, previously:

(ii) Amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and
jai alai. In the case of a wagering transaction with respect to horse
races, dog races, or jai alai, all wagers placed in a single parimutuel
pool and represented on a single ticket are aggregated and treated as a
single wager for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. A
ticket in the case of horse races, dog races, or jai alai is a written
or electronic record that the payee must present to collect proceeds
from a wager or wagers.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Your understanding of the old law is incorrect. It has always been "and" and not "or". The same is true for signers at the $600 level.

There was a loophole for the dime wager...if the dime super was hit for $599...no reporting. They figured the base wager at $2... I guess. $2 times 300-1=$600. Wondering if this stays the same under new rules...?

[VigorsTheGrey]

So if a dime Superfecta is hit that pays up to $4999.99, there will be no reporting nor withholding required..provided that "X" number of combinations are wagered in the pool....what is the fill-in answer for "X"

[showonly]

So if a dime Superfecta is hit that pays up to $4999.99, there will be no reporting nor withholding required..provided that "X" number of combinations are wagered in the pool....what is the fill-in answer for "X"


about a $167

[VigorsTheGrey]

about a $167

Funny, that is what I came up with also $166.67....But I thought I must be insane and didn't want to let everyone here know yet...:lol:

[showonly]

It would be nice to see .10 supers and .50 trifectas eliminated but I guess I am being greedy. The reporting changes are very helpful.

[ultracapper]

There was a loophole for the dime wager...if the dime super was hit for $599...no reporting. They figured the base wager at $2... I guess. $2 times 300-1=$600. Wondering if this stays the same under new rules...?

There never was any reporting for anything under $600, regardless of bet size.

[showonly]

Funny, that is what I came up with also $166.67....But I thought I must be insane and didn't want to let everyone here know yet...:lol:


Any bet size that keeps your maximum return at below 300-1 eliminates the need for to reporting.

it maybe 300 for 1, not 300 to 1

[VigorsTheGrey]

There never was any reporting for anything under $600, regardless of bet size.

Right, and that is not going to change. If I bet one dime super combination only, cold, and it pays $601, then I am going to be reporting right? Or do the new rules bump the $600 threshold to $5000..if I have enough dimes on it....for reporting?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Right, and that is not going to change. If I bet one dime super combination only, cold, and it pays $601, then I am going to be reporting right? Or do the new rules bump the $600 threshold to $5000..if I have enough dimes on it....for reporting?

It used to be that it made sense to bet the dime super as opposed to the buck or 2 buck super because when hit it would remain under the $600 threshold more often...should that method still be followed...? or is there an optimum number of dime combinations (amounts, ticket size) to maximize return without crossing the $5000 threshold...?

I thinking $5000 divided by 300 (for 300-1) divided by .10 (dime) gives me 166.66667 (somethings) But I don't know what this represents..? Can anybody help me figure out what I'm trying to do here...?

[Lafecs]

So if a dime Superfecta is hit that pays up to $4999.99, there will be no reporting nor withholding required..provided that "X" number of combinations are wagered in the pool....what is the fill-in answer for "X"

4999.99 divided by 300 = $16.60 ticket or 166 combinations

I'm not sure if it matters if the payout was over $5000, as long as the payout paid 300-1 or less on the aggregate ticket. Anyone know the answer to this? :popcorn:

[VigorsTheGrey]

4999.99 divided by 300 = $16.60 ticket or 166 combinations

I'm not sure if it matters if the payout was over $5000, as long as the payout paid 300-1 or less on the aggregate ticket. Anyone know the answer to this? :popcorn:

Yep, that is what I'm thinking but I need someone smarter than me to explain it clearly...I thinking this $16.60 (166 combination dime ticket) is optimal somehow...

[PICSIX]

4999.99 divided by 300 = $16.60 ticket or 166 combinations

I'm not sure if it matters if the payout was over $5000, as long as the payout paid 300-1 or less on the aggregate ticket. Anyone know the answer to this? :popcorn:

If any of the 166 combinations in this example pays more than $5000 it will be a signer. If it were 166 combos @ .20 then it would be a signer for any combo paying over $9,960.

[AndyC]

There was a loophole for the dime wager...if the dime super was hit for $599...no reporting. They figured the base wager at $2... I guess. $2 times 300-1=$600. Wondering if this stays the same under new rules...?

The loophole being that you could keep the proceeds under the $600 threshold. The threshold wasn't changed so the "loophole" would still be available.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The loophole being that you could keep the proceeds under the $600 threshold. The threshold wasn't changed so the "loophole" would still be available.

This is great news for all of us....and since I play dime supers frequently....I'm just confirming under the new rules, for example, that if I bet, say 100 dime combinations and one of these combos is correct, then the individualized payout threshold for reporting would be $10 times 300 or $3000 instead of $600 under the old rules.

The reporting threshold would rise incrementally for additional combinations wagered up to the $16.60 amount, where it would meet the $5000 payout level at which point reporting and withholding kicks in regardless of further increases in ticket/ combinations amounts because $16.666667 times 300 is equal to $5000.

[AndyC]

This is great news for all of us....and since I play dime supers frequently....I'm just confirming under the new rules, for example, that if I bet, say 100 dime combinations and one of these combos is correct, then the individualized payout threshold for reporting would be $10 times 300 or $3000 instead of $600 under the old rules.

The reporting threshold would rise incrementally for additional combinations wagered up to the $16.60 amount, where it would meet the $5000 payout level at which point reporting and withholding kicks in regardless of further increases in ticket/ combinations amounts because $16.666667 times 300 is equal to $5000.

You are still confused! To be reported any bet must meet 2 criteria: 1) Total win must exceed $600 and 2) must be 300-1 or more based on amount bet. There are no other circumstances that will require reporting that don't meet the 2 criteria. The $5000 threshold only relates to withholding and then only on tickets that meet the above 2 criteria. Reporting does not "kick in" at $5000, it kicks in if both of the criteria are met.

The only way the dime loophole works is if your payoff is over 300-1 but under $600.

[VigorsTheGrey]

You are still confused! To be reported any bet must meet 2 criteria: 1) Total win must exceed $600 and 2) must be 300-1 or more based on amount bet. There are no other circumstances that will require reporting that don't meet the 2 criteria. The $5000 threshold only relates to withholding and then only on tickets that meet the above 2 criteria. Reporting does not "kick in" at $5000, it kicks in if both of the criteria are met.

The only way the dime loophole works is if your payoff is over 300-1 but under $600.

But $10 times 300 is $3000....so are you saying the above example of the $10 multiple combination superfecta ticket is incorrect and it will still be a signer...? Even though it pays UNDER $3000...then I truly do not understand what the inclusion of the total wager amount is doing in this case.

I regret, in advance, any errors in my thinking and thank you for your patience...

[AndyC]

But $10 times 300 is $3000....so are you saying the above example of the $10 multiple combination superfecta ticket is incorrect and it will still be a signer...? Even though it pays UNDER $3000...then I truly do not understand what the inclusion of the total wager amount is doing in this case.

I regret, in advance, any errors in my thinking and thank you for your patience...

You need to apply each criteria separately. If your bet returned $2510 you would take $2510-10=2500(net win) Meets criteria 1 for reporting, net win is $600 or more. You then divide your net win by your amount bet 2500/10=250 to find that it does not meet criteria 2 of being 300-1 or more. So no reporting involved because both criteria were not met. When your net win reaches $5,000 and the 2nd criteria is met withholding "kicks in".

[VigorsTheGrey]

You need to apply each criteria separately. If your bet returned $2510 you would take $2510-10=2500(net win) Meets criteria 1 for reporting, net win is $600 or more. You then divide your net win by your amount bet 2500/10=250 to find that it does not meet criteria 2 of being 300-1 or more. So no reporting involved because both criteria were not met. When your net win reaches $5,000 and the 2nd criteria is met withholding "kicks in".

Yes, I agree....and this is what I have been saying all along with my examples...

[VigorsTheGrey]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/a-billion-dollar-boon/

[VigorsTheGrey]

STEVE MAY, DIRECTOR OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING FOR THE KENTUCKY HORSE RACING COMMISSION:
“Let us say a player invests $48 into 24 combinations of single $2 Pick-4 ticket and has one winning selection that pays $4,235. Currently the player would have to fill out a tax form because the winnings were in excess of 300-1 odds on the base $2 wager. This is an undue burden on the horseplayer and the racetrack, and it creates a large amount of unnecessary tax forms. Under the new rules, the same ticket would have to return $14,449 to require IRS paperwork.”


From the article above.

[spiketoo]

You are still confused! To be reported any bet must meet 2 criteria: 1) Total win must exceed $600 and 2) must be 300-1 or more based on amount bet. There are no other circumstances that will require reporting that don't meet the 2 criteria. The $5000 threshold only relates to withholding and then only on tickets that meet the above 2 criteria. Reporting does not "kick in" at $5000, it kicks in if both of the criteria are met.

The only way the dime loophole works is if your payoff is over 300-1 but under $600.

This should be a sticky. Well done sir.

[LemonSoupKid]

Let's say I go to the track and make the following wagers, $1 pick 4, just to make it easy, 4 tickets:

144 combos
108
163
72

I cash on the last two, which are winners. They payout is $3800 that day, for a dollar. I walk up to the teller, $3800 comes on the screen after scanning the first ticket. Then after scanning the second, 7600 is the balance. Because (163 x 300 = 48900, - 163 = 48737; and 72 x 300 = 21600, - 72 = 21528) the tickets were not more than 48737 and 21528 above, there is no reporting. She hands me $7600 and I walk away.

ADW can theoretically see that you bought the 108 and 144 and played in the same pool, but the negative there is you don't just walk away, there is technically an electronic trail with you, theoretically forever. Who cares if you get to write off 252 off a 7600 win or future wins for that year when you don't have to be concerned with any of it if you walk away from the track, cash in hand.

If any of this is inaccurate or I am forgetting something, please advise.

[AndyC]

Let's say I go to the track and make the following wagers, $1 pick 4, just to make it easy, 4 tickets:

144 combos
108
163
72

I cash on the last two, which are winners. They payout is $3800 that day, for a dollar. I walk up to the teller, $3800 comes on the screen after scanning the first ticket. Then after scanning the second, 7600 is the balance. Because (163 x 300 = 48900, - 163 = 48737; and 72 x 300 = 21600, - 72 = 21528) the tickets were not more than 48737 and 21528 above, there is no reporting. She hands me $7600 and I walk away.

ADW can theoretically see that you bought the 108 and 144 and played in the same pool, but the negative there is you don't just walk away, there is technically an electronic trail with you, theoretically forever. Who cares if you get to write off 252 off a 7600 win or future wins for that year when you don't have to be concerned with any of it if you walk away from the track, cash in hand.

If any of this is inaccurate or I am forgetting something, please advise.

For starters, your math is not correct. The bet amount should be added to the 300-1 product and not subtracted. But you did ask.

The only problem with your scenario would be when the payoffs exceed the 300-1 criteria for 1 ticket but wouldn't exceed it if aggregated. I can't imagine why someone betting at the track would want to place their bets on separate tickets given the new regulations.

[LemonSoupKid]

Yes, sorry, you add, that is correct.

As far as separate tickets, the answer to your question is the caveman ticket problem; I'm suspecting you don't bet multirace wagers since you asked.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The downside of this is for non-ADW players, they need to aggregate their combinations on a single ticket, but for multi-race horizontals this is not an optimal betting strategy...most of the more experienced players have many tickets based on various alternatives of singles and spreads....

...So it forces us to use electronic tracking systems of one form or another to get the full benefit of betting into pools with multiple and different tickets....they do this they say because of the potential for fraud but it really is not fair for everyone yet...

[AndyC]

Yes, sorry, you add, that is correct.

As far as separate tickets, the answer to your question is the caveman ticket problem; I'm suspecting you don't bet multirace wagers since you asked.

You beg the question, what is the caveman ticket problem?

I've been known to bet more than a few multi-race wagers.

[AltonKelsey]

The downside of this is for non-ADW players, they need to aggregate their combinations on a single ticket, but for multi-race horizontals this is not an optimal betting strategy...most of the more experienced players have many tickets based on various alternatives of singles and spreads....

...So it forces us to use electronic tracking systems of one form or another to get the full benefit of betting into pools with multiple and different tickets....they do this they say because of the potential for fraud but it really is not fair for everyone yet...


Too much to ask, but they could have allowed aggregation of tickets bought at the SAME WINDOW within a certain timeframe to be aggregated. (better yet, consecutive tickets, easy to document with serialization on the ticket)

The single ticket rule is primitive.

[AndyC]

Too much to ask, but they could have allowed aggregation of tickets bought at the SAME WINDOW within a certain timeframe to be aggregated. (better yet, consecutive tickets, easy to document with serialization on the ticket)

The single ticket rule is primitive.

Currently 6 bets can be made on a ticket. It would be a simple fix by increasing that number to one more suited to today's bettors.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Currently 6 bets can be made on a ticket. It would be a simple fix by increasing that number to one more suited to today's bettors.
That is good to know...! I'll try it with a teller.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Currently 6 bets can be made on a ticket. It would be a simple fix by increasing that number to one more suited to today's bettors.

Which bets are you referring to...? I tried p4's with the teller but 3x3 inch dimension of standard ticket slip will not allow more than one P4 matrix at a time.

[AndyC]

Which bets are you referring to...? I tried p4's with the teller but 3x3 inch dimension of standard ticket slip will not allow more than one P4 matrix at a time.

I have no idea. That information was in the release you referenced in your opening post.

[LemonSoupKid]

You beg the question, what is the caveman ticket problem?

I've been known to bet more than a few multi-race wagers.

If you put every single horse you like no matter how much you like them in each leg (one ticket), you'll have a caveman ticket that doesn't weight how much you like or dislike a particular horse in any given leg. I'm pretty sure you at least have a peripheral knowledge of this. If you don't, you should stop playing multirace wagers.

[AndyC]

If you put every single horse you like no matter how much you like them in each leg (one ticket), you'll have a caveman ticket that doesn't weight how much you like or dislike a particular horse in any given leg. I'm pretty sure you at least have a peripheral knowledge of this. If you don't, you should stop playing multirace wagers.

Thanks for the kind words and the advice.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I read an internal communique today, don't know which track it applies to but likely at least for California tracks and OTB outlets...I'll relay what it said....

"On Thursday, September 28, 2017, we will implement the updated tax rules that were recently adopted by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Our tote system is approximately 45 days away from implementing this new tax code. Therefore, at this time we will continue to process all winning wagers as we have done so previously.

It has been estimated that 90% of the wagers that were previously processed as reportable to the IRS will now no longer be reportable to the IRS as taxable winnings. We are therefore going to audit all IRS transactions (W-2G forms) on a daily basis. The winners that no longer meet the new tax qualifications will be receiving a letter (and a refund check for the withholding amount) stating the status of the wager(s) in question.

If it is determined that the wager(s) is no longer reportable to the IRS, we will destroy the completed W-2G form and NOT report the winnings to the IRS."

[VigorsTheGrey]

The downside of this is for non-ADW players, they need to aggregate their combinations on a single ticket, but for multi-race horizontals this is not an optimal betting strategy...most of the more experienced players have many tickets based on various alternatives of singles and spreads....

...So it forces us to use electronic tracking systems of one form or another to get the full benefit of betting into pools with multiple and different tickets....they do this they say because of the potential for fraud but it really is not fair for everyone yet...

I wonder what percentage of total exotics betting handle is run through ADW's like TVG and the rest of them...? Are there any ways to know how much is done electronically versus using a clerk or machine at the track or OTB yourself...?

[LemonSoupKid]

If you cash a 20k ticket which had a base of $100, they pay you 20k and you walk away, right? Let's be real, this is basically what people want to know.

[LemonSoupKid]

Thanks for the kind words and the advice.

No problem.

[VigorsTheGrey]

"(2)
Definition of a reportable gambling winning and determination of amount
subject to backup withholding. For purposes of withholding under section 3406, a reportable gambling winning is any gambling winning subject to information reporting under section 6041.

A gambling winning (other than a winning from bingo, keno, or slot machines) is a reportable gambling
winning only if the amount paid with respect to the wager is $600 or more and if the proceeds are at least 300 times as large as the amount wagered."


From the link in post 1. Page 18.

[AndyC]

"(2)
Definition of a reportable gambling winning and determination of amount
subject to backup withholding. For purposes of withholding under section 3406, a reportable gambling winning is any gambling winning subject to information reporting under section 6041.

A gambling winning (other than a winning from bingo, keno, or slot machines) is a reportable gambling
winning only if the amount paid with respect to the wager is $600 or more and if the proceeds are at least 300 times as large as the amount wagered."


From the link in post 1. Page 18.

Don't confuse backup withholding and regular withholding on winnings. Section 3406 refers to backup withholding.

[LemonSoupKid]

If you cash a 20k ticket which had a base of $100, they pay you 20k and you walk away, right? Let's be real, this is basically what people want to know.

I'll give another hypothetical: We go to the Breeders Cup. The $1 pick 4 pays $13k, which I cashed on a $1 ticket wheel with 72 combos. Since this is less than $21,600 + 72, the teller hands over $13k cash. Does anything else happen?

[VigorsTheGrey]

The way I see it reporting starts at 300-1 AND $600.
Withholding at 300-1 AND $5000.
The total amount wagered into the pool by the bettor is considered.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I'll give another hypothetical: We go to the Breeders Cup. The $1 pick 4 pays $13k, which I cashed on a $1 ticket wheel with 72 combos. Since this is less than $21,600 + 72, the teller hands over $13k cash. Does anything else happen?

Yes, the way I understand it, your winnings are reportable but nothing is withheld at the time of cashing. The net proceeds are still taxable. Am I wrong here...?

[therussmeister]

:confused:Yes, the way I understand it, your winnings are reportable but nothing is withheld at the time of cashing. The net proceeds are still taxable. Am I wrong here...?

Winnings are not reportable in example given. All net proceeds are taxable. If you bet $2 to show and collect $3, that is taxable.

[AndyC]

I'll give another hypothetical: We go to the Breeders Cup. The $1 pick 4 pays $13k, which I cashed on a $1 ticket wheel with 72 combos. Since this is less than $21,600 + 72, the teller hands over $13k cash. Does anything else happen?

No.

[Ian Meyers]

1. Anything at odds of less than 300-1 is NOT reported. The "1" considers that amount of like wagers into the race/pool. e.g. You play a $48 PK4 in 1 wager and a $24 PK4 in another (same track/race). IRS won't be notified unless payout is >= $21,600. If it pays $20k you cash for $20k. If it pays $22k you pay immediate withholding on $22k ($5,500).

2. Law states same pool/same race. At ADWs all of your same pool/same race bets will count as your basis. At the track it's ONLY the same physical ticket. If you get 3 different wagers on the one ticket that's your basis. If you have separate paper tickets for the three bets the one that wins will determine your basis.

[thaskalos]

:confused:

Winnings are not reportable in example given. All net proceeds are taxable. If you bet $2 to show and collect $3, that is taxable.

What if you are down $500 for the day...when you collect that $3 payoff?

[LemonSoupKid]

1. Anything at odds of less than 300-1 is NOT reported. The "1" considers that amount of like wagers into the race/pool. e.g. You play a $48 PK4 in 1 wager and a $24 PK4 in another (same track/race). IRS won't be notified unless payout is >= $21,600. If it pays $20k you cash for $20k. If it pays $22k you pay immediate withholding on $22k ($5,500).

2. Law states same pool/same race. At ADWs all of your same pool/same race bets will count as your basis. At the track it's ONLY the same physical ticket. If you get 3 different wagers on the one ticket that's your basis. If you have separate paper tickets for the three bets the one that wins will determine your basis.

Yes, thank you. Finally people get to walk away from all the taxes that were stolen from them, for all those years. Or at least re-wager it that day.

[LemonSoupKid]

What if you are down $500 for the day...when you collect that $3 payoff?

I also love the idea that if you hit a multirace one year huge and it was the first time in 5 to 10 years, you can't write that off against prior losses. You gotta hit or lose multiple horizontals in the same year, lol

This is basically the proof that taxing this stuff is a fraud in the first place. Beyond the fact that the gov't is 21 tril in debt, and horse racing winnings account for .000000001% of not only that, but the yearly national budget, lol

Lemme guess guys, someone will be asking, "Who's gonna pay for the horse racing tax break?"

SMH as if collecting taxes are the problem in the country, unbelievable

[sjk]

Caught one yesterday that benefitted from the new rule. Winners have been somewhat scarce for me the last few months so this one was very nice to have and better that it will not be burdened with a 1099.

[mabred]

anyone know if sportech is in compliance with this new regulation yet??

they have twin river casino and when i asked a manager there he said

he had no infoYET !!!they also have plainridge casino but i haven't been there in years.Also hollywood races.com AWD


thanks

mabred

[LemonSoupKid]

Caught one yesterday that benefitted from the new rule. Winners have been somewhat scarce for me the last few months so this one was very nice to have and better that it will not be burdened with a 1099.

:headbanger:

Love hearing that. Let's hope it also happens during the BC

[DGroundhog]

anyone know if sportech is in compliance with this new regulation yet??

they have twin river casino and when i asked a manager there he said

he had no infoYET !!!they also have plainridge casino but i haven't been there in years.Also hollywood races.com AWD


thanks

mabred

I would talk to another manager or ask them to GET that info. All they have to do is call Sportech if nobody at the casino knows for sure (unlikely if there is even a single competent person at the casino). You can and should get an answer in less than 5 minutes.

[mabred]

they are good to go !!!

mabred

[QuarterCrack]

Question, I'm wagering at a facility that has not yet implemented the new IRS rules, and I hit a tax ticket; would it make a difference if I wait until after November 15th to cash it, or is it based on the date the bet is made, not the date of cashing?

[AlsoEligible]

Question, I'm wagering at a facility that has not yet implemented the new IRS rules, and I hit a tax ticket; would it make a difference if I wait until after November 15th to cash it, or is it based on the date the bet is made, not the date of cashing?

I would talk to management at the facility. I know that while several tracks were waiting for their totes to implement the new rules, they were still honoring them. Clerks would figure out at the window if a ticket should be eligible for reporting/withholding, and if it wasn't, they just pay out the full amount.

If you've already done that and the facility simply isn't honoring the new rules until November 15th, then unfortunately it won't matter when you cash it. The rules apply to whatever date the ticket was sold/priced, not when it is cashed.

[AstrosFan]

Question, I'm wagering at a facility that has not yet implemented the new IRS rules, and I hit a tax ticket; would it make a difference if I wait until after November 15th to cash it, or is it based on the date the bet is made, not the date of cashing?

Cash away, but the fact of the matter is that the IRS isn't going to penalize you (come tax time) even if the track makes you sign for it, when the new rule is already in place. The lazy ass track mgmt. officials need to implement this when it took effect, not Nov. 15 for a "deadline"

[AstrosFan]

If you cash a 20k ticket which had a base of $100, they pay you 20k and you walk away, right? Let's be real, this is basically what people want to know.

Correct b/c in the new tax rules, that ticket would have had to pay $30,000+ for it to be considered a "signer"

$100 base x 300-1 = $30,000

[LemonSoupKid]

Cash away, but the fact of the matter is that the IRS isn't going to penalize you (come tax time) even if the track makes you sign for it, when the new rule is already in place. The lazy ass track mgmt. officials need to implement this when it took effect, not Nov. 15 for a "deadline"

Did this mean that if you hit a bet in 2017 that was withheld right before November, but wouldn't have been after at the site, you theoretically could have neglected to put it on your tax return (and gotten away with it)?

[LemonSoupKid]

Bumping again for this reason as well

If you hit for less than 300-1 and thus the cash amount is not a withheld, but the amount the teller hands over is $15k, let's say, do they file a CTR? If so, is that a risk for those who "don't report" due to the fact that the form for CTR has your details on it?

[AndyC]

Cash away, but the fact of the matter is that the IRS isn't going to penalize you (come tax time) even if the track makes you sign for it, when the new rule is already in place. The lazy ass track mgmt. officials need to implement this when it took effect, not Nov. 15 for a "deadline"

If you sign for it, the winnings will be reported and they then will need to be reported on your tax return. Even if you don't sign for it the winnings are supposed to be reported on your tax return. The new regulations did not change the rules for taxing gambling winnings. They changed the reporting rules and the withholding rules. As for penalties, if the IRS finds out that you didn't report winnings just because it wasn't a signer you can definitely be hit with some nice big penalties.