Republican tax reform package eliminates deduction for gambling losses?

[dilanesp]

It sounds like it might.

https://m.mic.com/articles/185774/republican-tax-plan-2017-how-the-gop-reform-bill-hits-middle-class-deductions-brackets-and-more

[Afleet]

It sounds like it might.

https://m.mic.com/articles/185774/republican-tax-plan-2017-how-the-gop-reform-bill-hits-middle-class-deductions-brackets-and-more

most signers in the past are no longer signers

[AndyC]

It sounds like it might.

https://m.mic.com/articles/185774/republican-tax-plan-2017-how-the-gop-reform-bill-hits-middle-class-deductions-brackets-and-more

Section 1305 of the bill deals with the changes in gambling loss deductions. Doesn't look like they are eliminated.

[dilanesp]

Section 1305 of the bill deals with the changes in gambling loss deductions. Doesn't look like they are eliminated.

Well, what DOES it say? Matt Yglesias on Twitter, who read the bill, says they are eliminated.

[AndyC]

Well, what DOES it say? Matt Yglesias on Twitter, who read the bill, says they are eliminated.

SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON WAGERING LOSSES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 165(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ''For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 'losses from wagering transactions' includes any deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter incurred in carrying on any wagering trans
action.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.


I will respectfully disagree with Matt's interpretation of the above.

[thaskalos]

SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON WAGERING LOSSES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 165(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ''For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 'losses from wagering transactions' includes any deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter incurred in carrying on any wagering trans
action.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.


I will respectfully disagree with Matt's interpretation of the above.

In English, please?

[AndyC]

In English, please?

I read that to mean that expenses other than gambling losses deducted as business expenses by gamblers will be treated the same as gambling losses.
Example: Bettor wins $100,000 and loses $95,000 and incurs $10,000 in business expenses related to gambling. In 2017 the gambler can claim a net loss of $5,000 but in 2018 the bettor will only be allowed to deduct $5,000 of business expenses. Treating the expenses as gambling losses restricts the write-off to the amount of gambling winnings.

Seems to me that the clause was aimed at professional gamblers incurring net operating losses. That is my initial thought on the provision.

[thaskalos]

I read that to mean that expenses other than gambling losses deducted as business expenses by gamblers will be treated the same as gambling losses.
Example: Bettor wins $100,000 and loses $95,000 and incurs $10,000 in business expenses related to gambling. In 2017 the gambler can claim a net loss of $5,000 but in 2018 the bettor will only be allowed to deduct $5,000 of business expenses. Treating the expenses as gambling losses restricts the write-off to the amount of gambling winnings.

Seems to me that the clause was aimed at professional gamblers incurring net operating losses. That is my initial thought on the provision.

Important laws such as these...and they are presented in a manner which leaves even the CPAs uncertain about their actual meaning. And I thought Trump was there to "simplify" things. :faint:

[AndyC]

Important laws such as these...and they are presented in a manner which leaves even the CPAs uncertain about their actual meaning. And I thought Trump was there to "simplify" things. :faint:

Not having read the entire 400+ mind-numbing pages of the bill I am not really in a position to be definitive about anything.

[dilanesp]

I read that to mean that expenses other than gambling losses deducted as business expenses by gamblers will be treated the same as gambling losses.
Example: Bettor wins $100,000 and loses $95,000 and incurs $10,000 in business expenses related to gambling. In 2017 the gambler can claim a net loss of $5,000 but in 2018 the bettor will only be allowed to deduct $5,000 of business expenses. Treating the expenses as gambling losses restricts the write-off to the amount of gambling winnings.

Seems to me that the clause was aimed at professional gamblers incurring net operating losses. That is my initial thought on the provision.

Having now tracked down the text, I agree with Andy's interpretation.

Reminds me of why I don't practice tax law.

[rastajenk]

One thing is certain, Matthew Yglesias is never to be trusted...on anything.

[GMB@BP]

One thing is certain, Matthew Yglesias is never to be trusted...on anything.

I saw all this stuff of doom and gloom and then a blurb saying "oops" at drf, its really pretty much the same.

probably initially a politically motived take.

[dilanesp]

I saw all this stuff of doom and gloom and then a blurb saying "oops" at drf, its really pretty much the same.

probably initially a politically motived take.

There were two or three different news outlets who reported the Republicans were eliminating this yesterday.

It wasn't political. The text of this thing was rushed out. People read it very quickly. Gambling wasn't the main issue. The gambling provision was listed within a whole section of deductions being "simplified" (i.e., eliminated). And Republicans weren't talking about gambling so it wasn't as though there was anyone out there denying the story.

[AndyC]

There were two or three different news outlets who reported the Republicans were eliminating this yesterday.

It wasn't political. The text of this thing was rushed out. People read it very quickly. Gambling wasn't the main issue. The gambling provision was listed within a whole section of deductions being "simplified" (i.e., eliminated). And Republicans weren't talking about gambling so it wasn't as though there was anyone out there denying the story.

What amazes me is all the talking that took place before people even saw the text of the bill.

After getting a chance to review most of the bill my take is that their will be a whole lot of complaining because the bill does a great job of closing many so-called loopholes. Things are indeed simplified for the vast majority of taxpayers.

[JustRalph]

Having now tracked down the text, I agree with Andy's interpretation.

Reminds me of why I don't practice tax law.

There goes your reputation rating......:lol:

[classhandicapper]

What amazes me is all the talking that took place before people even saw the text of the bill.


No one in the media cares what the bill actually says. They are only interested in spinning the story to make it look bad. We are way more likely to get good analysis from people like you than any of the major media outlets.

[Afleet]

I saw all this stuff of doom and gloom and then a blurb saying "oops" at drf, its really pretty much the same.

probably initially a politically motived take.

it always is