- - Withholding
( http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114183)
| Gallop58 |
06-03-2014 10:54 AM |
Withholding
|
| AndyC |
06-03-2014 12:21 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallop58
|
Of all the tax ripoffs facing horseplayers this one would have to be the furthest down the list of importance.
Let's see. A whale bets $5000 on a P-6 and only gets back $150,000. He has won $145,000 but because of the new proposed rule there is no reporting requirement because the bet wasn't over 300-1 on the total amount bet. That is absurd. You on the other hand could hit a superfecta by betting only $1 and get back $5,002 and have to face reporting and withholding.
My solution to the problem is simple. If you want to avoid withholding you must bet through an account. Withholding would only occur if your account shows you to be a net winner of $5000 or more. So for example, let's say you won $50,000 in January. Your account administrator would restrict you from withdrawing funds that would be needed for withholding. If in the next 3 months you proceeded to lose $50,000 there would be no reason to have withholding on the account. Problem solved. |
| thaskalos |
06-03-2014 04:28 PM |
This proposal needs to be expanded beyond the "withholding" aspect of this ridiculous law...and should include those instances where the player is asked to sign an IRS form whenever he collects a payoff of more than 600-1. I mean...the unfairness of the law applies in equal measure there. Why should I play a $160 pick-5 ticket...hit for a $605 return...and then have to sign an IRS form for my supposed 600/1 jackpot -- when the REAL return on my investment is less than 4/1?
The NTRA is being disingenuous here. They care only about the withheld money in the $5,000+ cases, because they know that this money would benefit them directly if it remained in the pockets of the bettors. But they don't care about the injustice perpetrated against the horseplayer when he signs those other signers...because this does not seem to have an adverse effect on the fortunes of the industry.
If you are going to ask for a revision to an unjust tax law...then try to fix it and get it right all the way through. Don't ask to fix just the part that would put more money in your pocket. Pathetic... :ThmbDown:
|
| AndyC |
06-03-2014 05:09 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
This proposal needs to be expanded beyond the "withholding" aspect of this ridiculous law...and should include those instances where the player is asked to sign an IRS form whenever he collects a payoff of more than 600-1. I mean...the unfairness of the law applies in equal measure there. Why should I play a $160 pick-5 ticket...hit for a $605 return...and then have to sign an IRS form for my supposed 600/1 jackpot -- when the REAL return on my investment is less than 4/1?
The NTRA is being disingenuous here. They care only about the withheld money in the $5,000+ cases, because they know that this money would benefit them directly if it remained in the pockets of the bettors. But they don't care about the injustice perpetrated against the horseplayer when he signs those other signers...because this does not seem to have an adverse effect on the fortunes of the industry.
If you are going to ask for a revision to an unjust tax law...then try to fix it and get it right all the way through. Don't ask to fix just the part that would put more money in your pocket. Pathetic... :ThmbDown:
|
The reporting requirement affects far more players than the withholding requirements. If you are betting in $1 increments, it should take on average 5,000+ bets at odds of 5,000-1 or higher to have 1 payoff subject to withholding. |
| ArlJim78 |
06-03-2014 05:11 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
This proposal needs to be expanded beyond the "withholding" aspect of this ridiculous law...and should include those instances where the player is asked to sign an IRS form whenever he collects a payoff of more than 600-1. I mean...the unfairness of the law applies in equal measure there. Why should I play a $160 pick-5 ticket...hit for a $605 return...and then have to sign an IRS form for my supposed 600/1 jackpot -- when the REAL return on my investment is less than 4/1?
The NTRA is being disingenuous here. They care only about the withheld money in the $5,000+ cases, because they know that this money would benefit them directly if it remained in the pockets of the bettors. But they don't care about the injustice perpetrated against the horseplayer when he signs those other signers...because this does not seem to have an adverse effect on the fortunes of the industry.
If you are going to ask for a revision to an unjust tax law...then try to fix it and get it right all the way through. Don't ask to fix just the part that would put more money in your pocket. Pathetic... :ThmbDown:
|
If you are correct that it only applies to the withholding aspect then I agree wholeheartedly with you. However I don't read it that way, for example this statement seems to indicate the change should be for both reporting and withholding purposes.
Quote:
Therefore, for reporting and withholding
purposes, winnings from that pool should be calculated as total proceeds minus
total wagers with respect to that pool
|
|
| AndyC |
06-03-2014 05:15 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
The NTRA is being disingenuous here. They care only about the withheld money in the $5,000+ cases, because they know that this money would benefit them directly if it remained in the pockets of the bettors. But they don't care about the injustice perpetrated against the horseplayer when he signs those other signers...because this does not seem to have an adverse effect on the fortunes of the industry.
|
I think the NTRA is heavily influenced by players who really do suffer cash flow problems do to the number of withholding signers they have. I recall a member of the NTRA Player's Panel telling me he had to get loans just to continue his betting. The withholding taken from his winners far exceeded his net winnings. |
| Robert Goren |
06-03-2014 05:31 PM |
The IRS will do what it wants whether anyone thinks it fair or not. It is damn fool that does not consider the tax consequences when he is wager and that includes withholding rules. I doubt if the new purposed rules go anywhere unless a Senator gets behind them. Even then it will take years.
|
| AndyC |
06-03-2014 05:43 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goren
The IRS will do what it wants whether anyone thinks it fair or not. It is damn fool that does not consider the tax consequences when he is wager and that includes withholding rules. I doubt if the new purposed rules go anywhere unless a Senator gets behind them. Even then it will take years.
|
Most politicians don't want to answer to constituents who ask why they voted for tax breaks for gamblers, regardless of the merits. |
| thaskalos |
06-03-2014 06:39 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
If you are correct that it only applies to the withholding aspect then I agree wholeheartedly with you. However I don't read it that way, for example this statement seems to indicate the change should be for both reporting and withholding purposes.
|
In my opinion...the push being made is only for the withholding part of the tax law. The reporting aspect was barely mentioned...and only as an illustrative example. |
| ArlJim78 |
06-03-2014 07:32 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
In my opinion...the push being made is only for the withholding part of the tax law. The reporting aspect was barely mentioned...and only as an illustrative example.
|
it would be idiotic to change the method of calculating the amount wagered only as it applies to withholding. it would add even more unfairness to an already unfair system. i believe they are stressing that example in order to sell the point that it would immediately put more money in the system. the unfairness aspect of one type of wager being treated differently than another is not as likely to attract sponsors. |
| AndyC |
06-03-2014 09:02 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
it would be idiotic to change the method of calculating the amount wagered only as it applies to withholding. it would add even more unfairness to an already unfair system. i believe they are stressing that example in order to sell the point that it would immediately put more money in the system. the unfairness aspect of one type of wager being treated differently than another is not as likely to attract sponsors.
|
Idiotic and politics are not exactly distant cousins. You would think that with 2 congressman collaborating on the letter each with a well-paid staff that they could have written something a little bit more coherent than they did. |
| Robert Goren |
06-03-2014 09:40 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
Idiotic and politics are not exactly distant cousins. You would think that with 2 congressman collaborating on the letter each with a well-paid staff that they could have written something a little bit more coherent than they did.
|
Not if their hearts weren't in it and they were only doing it for a small contributor. Nobody outside the tracks and a few bettors care about this. The power in horse racing from a political point of view is with the horsemen and their groups. And we all know how they feel about bettors. |
| ArlJim78 |
06-03-2014 10:45 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
Idiotic and politics are not exactly distant cousins. You would think that with 2 congressman collaborating on the letter each with a well-paid staff that they could have written something a little bit more coherent than they did.
|
I have to agree with you. I support the cause but it was presented poorly if you ask me. |
| Jeff P |
06-04-2014 07:05 PM |
I've added a notice about the proposed reporting changes to the HANA site:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...thholding.html
Quote:
Subject: Proposed Changes to US Tax Code for Horse Racing Winnings
Yesterday I received a letter from the NTRA asking HANA to join them in support of proposed changes in US Tax code as relates to reporting and withholding for horse racing winnings.
I see this as an important issue - something that should have been addressed years ago.
I signed the petition.
I'm asking HANA members and horseplayers everywhere to do the same.
Please, goto the NTRA site, and sign the petition. Direct link: Here.
Alternately, Just SIGN THE PETITION: Here.
Letter to the US Treasury: http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/Letter...es06032014.pdf
Please, take 3 minutes out of your day and MAKE A DIFFERENCE,
Jeff Platt
President, HANA
|
-jp
. |
| AndyC |
06-04-2014 07:47 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
|
Jeff,
Given my example below wouldn't it be better to scrap the 300-1 requirement in favor of a net win requirement?
Let's see. A whale bets $5000 on a P-6 and only gets back $150,000. He has won $145,000 but because of the new proposed rule there is no reporting requirement because the bet wasn't over 300-1 on the total amount bet. That is absurd. You on the other hand could hit a superfecta by betting only $1 and get back $5,002 and have to face reporting and withholding. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
|
|
