IRS Considers New Tax Rules

[AskinHaskin]

And lets be clear.

This law has not yet taken effect.

Nor do we presently know if it will ever take effect.


They were kicking around the hope that it might become effective by the Triple Crown races. But even if it does, any big hits you have in the present will be dealt with just as they have over the past many decades.


If they withhold $1600 from your $6400 win next week, don't expect to get it back in the mail at the moment this new regulation is approved.


It is potentially true that most players already never deal with these (present) IRS regulations, and the main impact of the thing will be that far fewer will reach the IRS thresholds off into the future.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Of course it is arbitrary - because it has to be somewhere.


But you have the option of putting 4 of your trifecta quick-picks on the same piece of paper from now on. The guy betting $5000 on the pick-6 does not have that same option.

So just do it... and raise your ceiling in the process.


If you only have a dollar left - bet a super and hope you lose...

Arbitrary is one thing but being arbitrary and illogical is another.

Previously you mentioned that all bets made through an ADW into a pool will be aggregated, i.e. a bettor doesn't have to worry about having all of his bets on one ticket. Where did you find that allowance for ADWs in the proposed regulations?

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Arbitrary is one thing but being arbitrary and illogical is another.

Previously you mentioned that all bets made through an ADW into a pool will be aggregated, i.e. a bettor doesn't have to worry about having all of his bets on one ticket. Where did you find that allowance for ADWs in the proposed regulations?

Hey wait a minute... I'm the one being illogical, when speaking of a guy betting his last dollar on a superfecta?? (you probably weren't referencing my example, I know)


Needless to say, the ADW's keep complete track of all of your bets, so their presence related to your records is as air-tight in the case of year-end reporting as it is in the case of tallying just how many dollars you spent on quick-picks for the same trifecta pool. (It will hold up in 'court' if ever it came down to your insisting that you played $9 in that one trifecta pool vs. the $1 on which your online quick-pick netted a $2000 trifecta) (of course, provided the records assure you actually DID just that) (that part will just become part of the fabric of ADW accounts)


Gee, if the bozos who run racing stick to script, they might be able to just about mandate that everyone stay home and play online. (It could be like "Gulfstream West" minus the South Florida simulcast network).

(again sacrificing the future for the present)

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Hey wait a minute... I'm the one being illogical, when speaking of a guy betting his last dollar on a superfecta?? (you probably weren't referencing my example, I know)


Needless to say, the ADW's keep complete track of all of your bets, so their presence related to your records is as air-tight in the case of year-end reporting as it is in the case of tallying just how many dollars you spent on quick-picks for the same trifecta pool. (It will hold up in 'court' if ever it came down to your insisting that you played $9 in that one trifecta pool vs. the $1 on which your online quick-pick netted a $2000 trifecta) (of course, provided the records assure you actually DID just that) (that part will just become part of the fabric of ADW accounts)


Gee, if the bozos who run racing stick to script, they might be able to just about mandate that everyone stay home and play online. (It could be like "Gulfstream West" minus the South Florida simulcast network).

(again sacrificing the future for the present)

My illogical comment was directed at the regulations.

If you read the proposed regulations it doesn't say that tickets are aggregated because they are in the same pool. It simply says that you are allowed to aggregate all bets on one ticket. Proving that tickets were bet into the same pool is irrelevant for aggregation but important for identifying identical wagers. I think you assumed that the regulations would be logical with regard to aggregation, but they aren't. It specifically notes in the regs that the single ticket rule is for administrative purposes.

As for holding up in court, what would the bettor want as an outcome? All winnings are supposed to be declared on tax returns, not just ones shown on W-2Gs. Would the bettor argue that he wasn't allowed to cheat on his taxes because he erroneously received a W-2G for his winnings?

[AndyC]

I spoke with Keith Chamblin, COO of the NTRA this morning to get some clarification on the new proposed regulations for reporting and withholding on winnings.

It is his understanding that, while not explicitly stated in the regs, all wagers made through an ADW into a specific pool will be aggregated and considered a single ticket. That understanding coincides with the understanding expressed by a few members in this thread.

He mentioned that the tote companies have or soon will have the ability to put all bets on one large ticket so that bettors at the track or OTB will not be at a administrative disadvantage to those betting through ADWs.

[AltonKelsey]

Good thing too (that last part about on track). Else there would be every incentive to not place those wagers on track unless you absolutely had to .

[VigorsTheGrey]

Correct me if wrong...isn't the current rule for a 10 cent superfecta wager threshold = $600.10....?

If the rule is changed to 300 to 1....would the 10 cent bet threshold become $30....? After that, taxes....? Or would it still be 300:1 and $600 even for a dime?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Correct me if wrong...isn't the current rule for a 10 cent superfecta wager threshold = $600.10....?

If the rule is changed to 300 to 1....would the 10 cent bet threshold become $30....? After that, taxes....? Or would it still be 300:1 and $600 even for a dime?

There is an additional requirement that the winnings be at least $600. It is the same requirement for issuing 1099 forms for a business.

[SG4]

OK everyone here's your chance to submit a comment in agreement with the proposed rule change, hopefully there's enough positive feedback to push this through without much hassle.

https://www.ntra.com/comment/

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by SG4

OK everyone here's your chance to submit a comment in agreement with the proposed rule change, hopefully there's enough positive feedback to push this through without much hassle.

https://www.ntra.com/comment/

Thank you SG4!

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by SG4

OK everyone here's your chance to submit a comment in agreement with the proposed rule change, hopefully there's enough positive feedback to push this through without much hassle.

https://www.ntra.com/comment/

While the regulations will greatly reduce IRS sign-ups, they are far from fair. When a person who bets a straight 1$ trifecta has to sign for a $601 ticket and a person betting $1,000 on a P-6 that pays $50,000 doesn't have to do anything, there is something grossly unfair about the rules.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

While the regulations will greatly reduce IRS sign-ups, they are far from fair. When a person who bets a straight 1$ trifecta has to sign for a $601 ticket and a person betting $1,000 on a P-6 that pays $50,000 doesn't have to do anything, there is something grossly unfair about the rules.

Don't worry...the IRS will think of something to "rectify" this situation. Like...having the bettor sign whenever he collects $10,000 or more on a wager, regardless of investment.

[upthecreek]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/th...rk8ZSw.twitter

[upthecreek]

To all Thoroughbred horseplayers and racing fans,

The final quarter of Sunday’s incredible Super Bowl has me thinking about how no lead is ever safe and no race is ever over until time runs out or the result goes official. This is worth bearing in mind as we reach the mid-point of the U.S. Treasury’s 90-day public comment period on newly proposed regulations related to withholding and reporting of pari-mutuel winnings. As an industry we’re ahead by open lengths at the sixteenth pole but we must be kept to task.

The NTRA has been advancing this issue within the federal government for years and others in the industry sought these changes before the NTRA even came into existence nearly 20 years ago. We are now on the cusp of Treasury finally enacting the new rules – going official, so to speak. There is too much at stake to not give our all in these final strides.

In 2015, you were kind enough to submit a comment to Treasury urging them to consider modernization of regulations related to reporting and withholding of pari-mutuel gambling winnings. Treasury heard you loud and clear and responded on December 30, 2016 by issuing newly proposed regulations that address our needs. We are in the midst of another 90-day comment period and your support and action is more critical than ever.

We need you to once again let Treasury know you’d like them to enact the newly proposed regulations. Please take 30 seconds to add your name to the thousands that have already shown their support for Thoroughbred racing by visiting www.ntra.com/comment and submitting an e-mail to Treasury. The link does all the work – all you have to do is add your name, address and a valid email.

The proposed rule changes have received widespread industry support, including from horseplayers, horsemen, racetracks, and every major industry group. No less an authority than Steve Crist has called them “a godsend for horseplayers.” Now we need individuals like yourself to raise their voices and help us get this across the goal line. Go to www.ntra.com/comment right now and make it official.

Thank you for helping us to return more winnings to horseplayers and increase purse money for the good of the entire sport!

Best,


Alex Waldrop
President & CEO
National Thoroughbred Racing Association

[mabred]

any update since the comment period is over???

mabred