New Regulations For Tax Withholding Passed

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

They would still experience withholding upfront because the ticket is still paying at greater than 300-1 odds.

The only thing that is changing is *how* the 300-1 odds are calculated. It used to be based on only the amount of the winning combination. Now it's based on the total cost of the ticket (or for ADW players, the total amount you wagered into that pool).

So if a $200 Pick 6 with 200 different bets won $5000, the tote would only look at the $1 that won, and apply withholding because 5000-1 is greater than 300-1.

Under the new rules, it looks at the entire $200 ticket. So it would no longer be eligible for withholding, because 5000-200 (or 25-1) is not greater than 300-1.

If the payoff amount doesn't total $5,000...then there is no immediate IRS deduction. Even if the return is 4998-1.

[AlsoEligible]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the winnings don't total $5,000...then there is no immediate IRS deduction. Even if the return is 4998-1.

Yeah I misread that as $5000 for some reason, have since edited my post.

Again, all that changes is how the 300-1 odds are calculated.

[VigorsTheGrey]

So really we are talking about how the word AND is being interpreted...Meaning over $5000 AND over 300-1 with the total amount wagered into the pool....At least I hope it is this way....but Andy C says that AND really means OR,...

[thaskalos]

What this law means is that 99.9% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What this law means is that 99.99% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

Not necessarily. Only those bettors who aggregate their exotics into wheels, part-wheels boxes, boxes, etc....Do we really know what percentage of exotic tickets are purchased as stand alone cold combos...?

One thing for sure it really helps the deep pocket boys assuming that this $5000 threshold business is wrong...

Still good for all and about time..

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Not necessarily. Only those bettors who aggregate their exotics into wheels, part-wheels boxes, boxes, etc....Do we really know what percentage of exotic tickets are purchased as stand alone cold combos...?

One thing for sure it really helps the deep pocket boys assuming that this $5000 threshold...
business is wrong...

Still good for all and about time..

Anyone who is capable of hitting a "signer" with a single minimum-bet ticket is a much better player than I am. And as such...I place the odds of his existence at roughly 1000-1.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What this law means is that 99.9% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

Bettors betting at the track or OTBs, not using account wagering, should be aware of the "one ticket rule". Your 300-1 threshold will be computed based on what you have bet on one ticket. So if you bet $2 on a superfecta on one ticket and $2 on a superfecta on another ticket and one of the bets wins and pays $602 you will be signing. If however you put both bets on the same ticket you will be clear. The rule prevents a winner from picking up losing tickets and claiming them as there own in order to beat the threshold. There is an exception for account betting because it is clear that both bets were made by the account holder and are allowed to be aggregated.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Bettors betting at the track or OTBs, not using account wagering, should be aware of the "one ticket rule". Your 300-1 threshold will be computed based on what you have bet on one ticket. So if you bet $2 on a superfecta on one ticket and $2 on a superfecta on another ticket and one of the bets wins and pays $602 you will be signing. If however you put both bets on the same ticket you will be clear. The rule prevents a winner from picking up losing tickets and claiming them as there own in order to beat the threshold. There is an exception for account betting because it is clear that both bets were made by the account holder and are allowed to be aggregated.

I agree...the bettor will have to do a little thinking in order to fully utilize this new law to his advantage. But these kinds of payouts are seldom garnered by one-way wagers...so this problem will solve ITSELF, in almost all cases.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Anyone who is capable of hitting a "signer" with a single minimum-bet ticket is a much better player than I am. And as such...I place the odds of his existence at roughly 1000-1.

I just think there are many unsophisticated betters who call out cold combos for one reason or another...I know of one guy where I go that stands with a clerk calling out these cold $1 tickets for some time now...the level of sophistication is sometimes surprising...even with some of my chums...they can't seem to understand or read various part-wheels structures correctly, deeming those "too complicated'

I wonder if these folks will change or not, as old habits die hard...if the smarts are not there, oh well...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Bettors betting at the track or OTBs, not using account wagering, should be aware of the "one ticket rule". Your 300-1 threshold will be computed based on what you have bet on one ticket. So if you bet $2 on a superfecta on one ticket and $2 on a superfecta on another ticket and one of the bets wins and pays $602 you will be signing. If however you put both bets on the same ticket you will be clear. The rule prevents a winner from picking up losing tickets and claiming them as there own in order to beat the threshold. There is an exception for account betting because it is clear that both bets were made by the account holder and are allowed to be aggregated.

Did I read that a "Rewards Card" that some establishments offer may function as a wager tracking device and therefore qualify under similar ADW rules...?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Golfpro

Thank you INCOMING.That was nice of ya

Does this suggest that Golfpro is really EMD4ME in disguise...?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What this law means is that 99.9% of the "signers" that the bettors had been forced to report to the IRS will now go by the waste-side...and the bettors will be allowed to collect their money anonymously.

It's a big win for the players...that was long overdue.

Bottom line, end of thread

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by AndyC

$5000 is the winnings threshold for withholding. If you win $4000 there is no withholding. The secondary part of the equation is that the bet must have paid at least 300-1. So a person betting $1000 on a 6-1 to win would win $6000 but the bet paid under 300-1 so no withholding or reporting. Nothing in the law has changed other than how the 300-1 is computed. Before only your winning bet was considered so that a person betting $1000 into a P-6 and getting back $10,000 would be treated as though he had only made a $2 bet. So $2 to win $10,000 pushes all of the IRS buttons for reporting and withholding. Now the entire bet of $1,000 is considered in computing both the $5,000 threshold and the 300-1 threshold. In my example the $5,000 threshold is met but the 300-1 threshold is not meaning neither reporting nor withholding would be required.

I understand how the 300-1 is now computed (and different) from the older law, and that is not relevant to what I am trying to question.

What I am questioning is whether the bolded part is true. For 99.999% of the wagers folks make, the way the 300-1 is now calculated will be the only portion of the new law that impacts them. But, for a microscopic number of instances, the new law is going provide the benefit of no on-the-spot withholding taxes, whereas under the older law, on-the-spot withholding tax would have taken place given the exact same wager and payout.

As I understand it, under the older law the 300-1 and $5000 were OR parameters with regard to withholding. If either condition was met, tax was withheld on the spot.

Under the new law the 300-1 and $5000 are AND parameters with regard to withholding, meaning that both conditions had to be simultaneously met for withholding on the spot to take place.

************************************************** ****

So here is the hypothetical I gave before:

A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

************************************************** *****

The basis of my viewpoint hinges on the whether on not the sentence in red is true. I am not trying to be trivial or argumentative, just saving that if my understanding is correct, there could possibly be another several hundred ticket cashiers over a given year who will be happily rewarded with a full ticket payment rather than one that is reduced up front by a withholding tax.

[VigorsTheGrey]

From the DRF article cited in Post 1 of this thread:

"Tax-reporting is currently triggered when a bet pays off at excess of 300-1, when calculated on the base wager, with automatic withholding kicking in if the payoff is also in excess of $5,000. Under the new rules, those triggers would be calculated based on the total amount bet in the pool, and they would therefore have the most impact in exotic pools. For example, if a player bet 48 different combinations in a trifecta pool at a $1 base, the reporting and withholding requirements would not be triggered unless the payoff was in excess of $14,400."

So you can see why I am confused by the $5000 threshold statements...being for the new rules....If so, the then above article has it wrong...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

I understand how the 300-1 is now computed (and different) from the older law, and that is not relevant to what I am trying to question.

What I am questioning is whether the bolded part is true. For 99.999% of the wagers folks make, the way the 300-1 is now calculated will be the only portion of the new law that impacts them. But, for a microscopic number of instances, the new law is going provide the benefit of no on-the-spot withholding taxes, whereas under the older law, on-the-spot withholding tax would have taken place given the exact same wager and payout.

As I understand it, under the older law the 300-1 and $5000 were OR parameters with regard to withholding. If either condition was met, tax was withheld on the spot.

Under the new law the 300-1 and $5000 are AND parameters with regard to withholding, meaning that both conditions had to be simultaneously met for withholding on the spot to take place.

************************************************** ****

So here is the hypothetical I gave before:

A person wagers a single combination $1 trifecta that pays $4000.

Under the previous law that person experienced withholding tax upfront.
Under the new law that person does not experience withholding tax upfront.

************************************************** *****

The basis of my viewpoint hinges on the whether on not the sentence in red is true. I am not trying to be trivial or argumentative, just saving that if my understanding is correct, there could possibly be another several hundred ticket cashiers over a given year who will be happily rewarded with a full ticket payment rather than one that is reduced up front by a withholding tax.

Track Collector...your sentence in red is false.