Signers and Taxes

[Spiderman]

There is an extreme disadvantage for horse players who do not file Schedule A. In 2008, I hit $3,000 with two 'signers'. IRS requires that you file losses, up to winnings on line 28, Schedule A. Problem is that this disqualifies use of standard deduction of $5,450. Also, I do not have sufficient deductions to equal standard deductions.

Winning is losing! Unless, you win very big. By winning 'signers' for less than the standard deduction, you lose. You may also lose more if the standard deduction would have alleviated your tax reporting.

I know that this method of filing losses v. winnings was not always the case. When was this put into effect? The racing industry will lose a considerable amount of handle if more people decide to stop betting because winning will cost them more when filing taxes.

[chickenhead]

I have been in the same boat most of the last few years, thousands of dollars down the drain. It's a bitch, and definately makes exotics less enticing when you get the year end bill. There is some case to be made that nutting up on win and exacta betting is a much better course to take if you don't itemize.

[Robert Goren]

It has been that way since I first started betting horses in 1964. I learned very early in life not to chase big payoffs. As much as I like betting on horses, I don't think they should change the laws to promote gambling. Gambling in my book should be tolerated, not encouraged by governments.

[Track Collector]

Uncle Sam is certainly unfair to horseplayers when it comes to the tax laws. He is particularly hard on those who engage in the activity as a hobby and/or recreation. Even those who are able to file as Professional Gamblers (that is, wagering is their Business), find that that tax laws treat their business unequally when compared to other types of businesses. One notable example of this unfairness is the inability to carry over losses from one year to off-set profits from another year, whereas many other types of businesses can.

[jonnielu]

Uncle Sam is certainly unfair to horseplayers when it comes to the tax laws. He is particularly hard on those who engage in the activity as a hobby and/or recreation. Even those who are able to file as Professional Gamblers (that is, wagering is their Business), find that that tax laws treat their business unequally when compared to other types of businesses. One notable example of this unfairness is the inability to carry over losses from one year to off-set profits from another year, whereas many other types of businesses can.

You've also got to consider that if the citizen of a Republic is so ignorant of its fundamental laws that he believes his fellows can lawfully vote themselves some of his property. He might not deserve any fairness.

jdl

[johnhannibalsmith]

You've also got to consider that if the citizen of a Republic is so ignorant of its fundamental laws that he believes his fellows can lawfully vote themselves some of his property. He might not deserve any fairness.

jdl

-Jonnie Lou-Franklin(2010)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." — Benjamin Franklin (a long time ago)

I expect that a trip to ancestory.com would confirm my suspicions.

[NJ Stinks]

As much as I like betting on horses, I don't think they should change the laws to promote gambling. Gambling in my book should be tolerated, not encouraged by governments.

I totally disagree with you. There is nothing dishonorable about gambling. There is only dishonor in betting more than you can afford to lose.

Being taxed on winnings over a certain amount because you don't itemize is pathetic. What kind of a country would tolerate such an inequity for so long? It doesn't make me any prouder to be an American - that's for sure.

[jonnielu]

-Jonnie Lou-Franklin(2010)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." — Benjamin Franklin (a long time ago)

I expect that a trip to ancestory.com would confirm my suspicions.

I believe that it was Franklin that said if the time comes that the citizenry can vote themselves money, that will end the Republic.

jdl

[Robert Goren]

I totally disagree with you. There is nothing dishonorable about gambling. There is only dishonor in betting more than you can afford to lose.

Being taxed on winnings over a certain amount because you don't itemize is pathetic. What kind of a country would tolerate such an inequity for so long? It doesn't make me any prouder to be an American - that's for sure.A lot of people disagree with you about gambling. Even the track management and the horse people consider us degenerates. Almost no one except a gambler would call it a business. Quite a few states and probably a majority of countries do not even allow betting horses. Gamblers are really good at kidding themselves about what other people think about them (even winning gamblers). Most horse players learn very quickly not to discuss their betting with non horse players. My step father was case in point. He thought I should always buy lunch when ever he thought I had been to the track. His logic went. If I won; I could afford to pay. If I lost; if I had money to lose on the horses, then I had money to buy lunch. Tell me you don't know a bunch of people just like him.

[NJ Stinks]

Tell me you don't know a bunch of people just like him.

I do but it doesn't make them right about gambling.

I spent almost a month in England and France recently. There are bookie shops all over London and in every town too. (Good luck finding something English bookmakers won't take a bet on.) In France you can bet on horse races in bars and cafes all over Paris. These countries have been around a lot longer than the USA. If gambling was a plight on humanity as some believe, these countries would have made it illegal a long time ago.

In fact, I'd wager that most non-third world countries have racecourses and allow wagering on their races.

Personally, I'm proud to be a punter. And I don't care if anyone disapproves - including my mother-in-law who does! :D

I'm 60 years old for crying out loud. I earned the right to do whatever I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. Just like everybody else.

P.S. I bet on NFL games the first four weeks of the season legally in England. I come back here and I'm supposed to go to Vegas to legally bet the NFL? The Republican party can go to hell. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[jelly]

There is an extreme disadvantage for horse players who do not file Schedule A. In 2008, I hit $3,000 with two 'signers'. IRS requires that you file losses, up to winnings on line 28, Schedule A. Problem is that this disqualifies use of standard deduction of $5,450. Also, I do not have sufficient deductions to equal standard deductions.

Winning is losing! Unless, you win very big. By winning 'signers' for less than the standard deduction, you lose. You may also lose more if the standard deduction would have alleviated your tax reporting.

I know that this method of filing losses v. winnings was not always the case. When was this put into effect? The racing industry will lose a considerable amount of handle if more people decide to stop betting because winning will cost them more when filing taxes.



If you're at the track maybe a 10%er is the way to go.

[Spiderman]

If you're at the track maybe a 10%er is the way to go.

I am giving-up playing through the home ADW and using account card when I attend at track. It was a great convenience to play at home, but the minimal rewards system for using the card are out-weighed by the tax burden. If I box an exacta, I will get separate tickets.

Depends on the amout of win and losing tickets in my possession, whether a 10% would work. We need to change the IRS code regarding the reporting of losses.

[Spiderman]

It has been that way since I first started betting horses in 1964. I learned very early in life not to chase big payoffs. As much as I like betting on horses, I don't think they should change the laws to promote gambling. Gambling in my book should be tolerated, not encouraged by governments.

The IRS code, regarding reporting of losses v. winners, is totally inequitable. For winning: I lose $5,450 standard deduction that could be used for a tax refund. I really think that the code was changed within the past 5-15 years when levels of what amount is required to be a signer and what triggers automatic tax withholding.

Racing industry has had double-digit loss in handle. They promote winning P6 and other large pool bets. Little is known that a player(who does not itemize tax return) will lose about $1,000 in tax refund ability by winning.

The IRS code slams horseplayers. A player loses thousands of dollars by the method required to report losses. Certainly, it is cause to pause about betting large pool betting opportunities.

[Robert Goren]

The IRS code, regarding reporting of losses v. winners, is totally inequitable. For winning: I lose $5,450 standard deduction that could be used for a tax refund. I really think that the code was changed within the past 5-15 years when levels of what amount is required to be a signer and what triggers automatic tax withholding.

Racing industry has had double-digit loss in handle. They promote winning P6 and other large pool bets. Little is known that a player(who does not itemize tax return) will lose about $1,000 in tax refund ability by winning.

The IRS code slams horseplayers. A player loses thousands of dollars by the method required to report losses. Certainly, it is cause to pause about betting large pool betting opportunities.I had some signers in the 60s, so I know the code has not change on how to declare losses. You can bitch all you want about the tax code for gambling, but it is not going to change to make it easier to deduct losses. If it does change it, it will become harder. One more thing, if you try to deduct losses be sure you know what you are doing. The IRS has a certain way they want it done. The first year you do it an audit is very likely.

[Spiderman]

I had some signers in the 60s, so I know the code has not change on how to declare losses. You can bitch all you want about the tax code for gambling, but it is not going to change to make it easier to deduct losses. If it does change it, it will become harder. One more thing, if you try to deduct losses be sure you know what you are doing. The IRS has a certain way they want it done. The first year you do it an audit is very likely.

I would welcome an audit. The ADW Summary report shows $2,200 in overall loss for the year. No system for reporting can be more onerous than the existing code.

[wisconsin]

Gambling is the one area where the government taxes money that has already been taxed (as in prior to the money being bet into a pool as a whole). There is something wrong with this picture.

[TEJAS KIDD]

For the record, the IRS requires you to report ALL gambling winnings, not just the ones filed on W2G's. Be careful when just reporting W2G winnings as winnings. Someone who bets $2 show and gets back $2.10 is required to claim that .10 cents as winnings. Back in 97, I was audited (this was 2 years after an Audit which there was no change to my taxes, however, I never had filed taxes with total winnings-minus total losses). The auditor basically did not audit my 97 taxes but told me that they pulled me in to educate me about filing gambling winnings. You are required to claim every single wager that you won money and then you can deduct all losses up to the amount of winnings. For example, you have 25k in w2gs, more than likely you would have cashed much more NON signers throughout the year, Lets say you wagered 100k for the year and collected 110k for a 10k profit. The irs requires you to claim 110k as income and 100k as losses. (even though that's not entirely correct, because a 2 show bet profiting .10c would show up as a 2.10 win- minus the 2 wagered). Thats the way I've filed since 1997, only been audited once since then for 2007, of which there was no change.
I'd rather pay a flat rate of 10% on signers over 5k and just ditch all of the paper work required. Gambling winnings should be non taxable income and then be charged an automatic non refundable tax (10% of signers over 5k) to eliminate the millions of man hours and paper work required for all of the bullcrap below 5k signers.

[Actor]

There is an extreme disadvantage for horse players who do not file Schedule A. In 2008, I hit $3,000 with two 'signers'. IRS requires that you file losses, up to winnings on line 28, Schedule A. Problem is that this disqualifies use of standard deduction of $5,450. Also, I do not have sufficient deductions to equal standard deductions.

Winning is losing! Unless, you win very big. By winning 'signers' for less than the standard deduction, you lose. You may also lose more if the standard deduction would have alleviated your tax reporting.

I know that this method of filing losses v. winnings was not always the case. When was this put into effect? The racing industry will lose a considerable amount of handle if more people decide to stop betting because winning will cost them more when filing taxes.
You don't have to file Schedule A. You can go ahead and take the standard deduction. If you do that the IRS assumes your losses are part of the standard deduction which, in your case, seems to be correct.

I would bet that absolutely every US taxpayer is treated unfairly by some aspect of the US tax code. We just have to live with it. I don't see how any government in the world can fund its operations other than through confiscating the property of its citizenry on a regular basis.

[Track Collector]

For the record, the IRS requires you to report ALL gambling winnings, not just the ones filed on W2G's. Be careful when just reporting W2G winnings as winnings. Someone who bets $2 show and gets back $2.10 is required to claim that .10 cents as winnings. Back in 97, I was audited (this was 2 years after an Audit which there was no change to my taxes, however, I never had filed taxes with total winnings-minus total losses). The auditor basically did not audit my 97 taxes but told me that they pulled me in to educate me about filing gambling winnings. You are required to claim every single wager that you won money and then you can deduct all losses up to the amount of winnings. For example, you have 25k in w2gs, more than likely you would have cashed much more NON signers throughout the year, Lets say you wagered 100k for the year and collected 110k for a 10k profit. The irs requires you to claim 110k as income and 100k as losses. (even though that's not entirely correct, because a 2 show bet profiting .10c would show up as a 2.10 win- minus the 2 wagered). Thats the way I've filed since 1997, only been audited once since then for 2007, of which there was no change.
I'd rather pay a flat rate of 10% on signers over 5k and just ditch all of the paper work required. Gambling winnings should be non taxable income and then be charged an automatic non refundable tax (10% of signers over 5k) to eliminate the millions of man hours and paper work required for all of the bullcrap below 5k signers.

Folks will also be disappointed to know that you are required to report any rebates as income as well. Another way non-professionals get shafted is when using schedule "A", the amount of your wagers (even if you bet $100,000 per year and lose $100,000 to break even) gets applied as income, which can cause one to exceed allowable limits on donations and perhaps even medical expenses.

Given the explosion of poker tournaments over the past few years, the government has taken a much keener interest these days in returns which include gambling winnings. If you are doing significant activity and you do not enlist the services of a highly skilled Tax Professional versed in the latest gambling laws, it may cost you thousands of dollars.

BTW, I'm not a Tax Professional............I just play one on television! :p

[PaceAdvantage]

P.S. I bet on NFL games the first four weeks of the season legally in England. I come back here and I'm supposed to go to Vegas to legally bet the NFL? The Republican party can go to hell. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:Dems have controlled Congress since 2006 and everything since Jan 2009.

So tell me again why we can't bet NFL games in this country anywhere else besides Vegas (legally)?

[dvlander]

I would argue that horse racing is no more gambling than options, futures, or day trading stocks. Yet, it still gets the shaft in the tax laws. The biggest inequity is that you can only claim losses to the extent of gains.

To recap, we have to overcome takeout which is on average 20%. If we lose, we just have to eat it. If we win, we have to pay tax on the gain. Sounds like horse puckey to me.

Dale

[Jay Trotter]

Who pays taxes on gambling winnings where 15% to 20% has already been taken off the top? What regime would do such a thing!!! :lol:

Okay, I'm gonna do it -- I'm gonna volunteer to fly down (at your expense of course) and cash that signer for you. The tax will be paid up front but when I file my U.S. tax return all that tax comes back gratus as per Tax Treaty.

Seriously, if you get a signer big enough it would be nice to have a CANADIAN friend wouldn't it? Oh yes, and I want a steak dinner too!

Trotter:ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Dems have controlled Congress since 2006 and everything since Jan 2009.

So tell me again why we can't bet NFL games in this country anywhere else besides Vegas (legally)?

Because Republicans would never ever go for it. If you prefer to believe otherwise, suit yourself.

Here's a snapshot look at Republicans saving us from ourselves:
____________________________________________

House Financial Services Committee Votes to Approve Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Legislation

2010 July 28 (http:///archive/2010/07/), Matthew Kredell (http:///editors/matthew-kredell/)

The eventual timeline of how officially legalized online poker came about in the United States will include a spot for July 28, 2010, the first time a licensing and regulatory bill received a positive vote at the federal level.

The House Financial Services Committee passed Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act by a 41-22-1 vote....

The bill received overwhelming support from Democrats and some bipartisan support from Republicans. The Democrats voted 34-4 in favor of the legislation. Republicans gave it seven yes votes and 18 no votes. Ron Paul (R.-Tex) voted present, essentially not passing or rejecting the bill.

The link:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2010/07/house-financial-services-committee-votes-to-approve-barney-f-8618.htm
________________________________________

And don't get me started on McCain trying for years to eliminate betting on college sports in Nevada. And his meddling sidekick, Jon Kyl, who apparently cannot bear the thought that so many Americans choose to wager online. :bang:

[Robert Goren]

How is gambling treated different than any other non pay roll revenue income source. You run into the same problems with any part time business. Basically you have to itemize even you sell Avon on the side if you report your revenue from it.
You can argue to the cows come home on whether gambling income should be tax, but you are not going to get anything resembling a majority of people to agree with you. For the record, it used to be that a major part of the takeout went in state taxes. When I started wager in the 60s, 5% went to state and the track and purses got 8% in Nebraska. 13% total. Now the state gets less than 1% to run the state racing commission. The takeout is now at least 18% depending on the type of wager. You can guess who is getting the extra money now. (clue it is not Fonner Park) Taxes are not what is killing racing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because Republicans would never ever go for it. If you prefer to believe otherwise, suit yourself.So you're saying that the Dems were PREVENTED somehow from opening the gambling floodgates? Despite owning the majority in both the House and Senate AND owning the White House?

Are you sure about that?

Maybe they had other reasons, but being PREVENTED BY REPUBLICANS should not be one of them.

I'll allow you to respond NJ, and then I'll probably close this thread, as I can't have a political firestorm erupt here in the horse racing section.

[JustRalph]

I'm 60 years old for crying out loud. I earned the right to do whatever I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. Just like everybody else.


You know, I have been trying like hell not to get involved in much discussion lately... but I have been staring at this quote for a while now and I just have to ask.........

Why is this your attitude when it comes to the topic of this thread, but completely the opposite in your politics? You are normally screaming for government to reach into our pockets at will. The quote above basically boils down to a basic conservative philosophy. Less intervention in our lives, less intrusion and yet when it comes to the topic at hand.........you pop off with this?

[jelly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
I'm 60 years old for crying out loud. I earned the right to do whatever I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. Just like everybody else.




You know, I have been trying like hell not to get involved in much discussion lately... but I have been staring at this quote for a while now and I just have to ask.........

Why is this your attitude when it comes to the topic of this thread, but completely the opposite in your politics? You are normally screaming for government to reach into our pockets at will. The quote above basically boils down to a basic conservative philosophy. Less intervention in our lives, less intrusion and yet when it comes to the topic at hand.........you pop off with this?



BAM! :D

[NY BRED]

funny thing

people can go to a crap table play the horn at huge odds,press./press/press until certain limts (depending in state/casino), win thousands
and not get tagged by IRS:jump:

hit the slots, different story.:confused:

And then off course , is the tri that pays 801.000 for 2 bucks,
and somone forgot to take a $! tri several times........:eek:

[WinterTriangle]

the tri that pays 801.000 for 2 bucks,
and somone forgot to take a $! tri several times........:eek:

i am always surprised at how many handicappers do not play the very smallest wager available, then repeat it x amount of times.

[Pell Mell]

I believe the rule is that the teller is supposed to ask if you have any more identical tickets. When betting online they will add your tickets together and nail you anyway. :mad: