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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jonnielu

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

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]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

-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]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

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!

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.

[jelly]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by jelly

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

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.