New Regulations For Tax Withholding Passed

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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]

Originally Posted by AndyC

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]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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]

Originally Posted by AndyC

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]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

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]

Originally Posted by AndyC

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...n-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]

Originally Posted by AndyC

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.