‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ potentially very bad for poker (players) in the US + STAY ON TOPIC!!

Lol @ markets rebounding. They are manipulating markets to make themselves rich, idiot. Also reducing the tariffs that Trump placed on China. Genius.

Let's add that to my list too. Placing tariffs on almost the entire world, except notably Russia. Nice job.
Why dont you explain all the things that aren't true, according to you?

Or don't, it's clear you are a maga lunatic. You could eat diarrhea straight from Trumps ass and call it chocolate.

In cash games you could always do some creative math to offset the 10%, it's a moot point.

The problem is with every kind of tournament especially high buyin ones.

You need to put more effort into research or comprehension, probably both.

SEC. 70114. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON WAGERING
LOSSES.

(a) In General.--Section 165 is amended by striking subsection (d)
and inserting the following:
``(d) Wagering Losses.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of losses from wagering
transactions, the amount allowed as a deduction for any taxable
year--
``(A) shall be equal to 90 percent of the amount of
such losses during such taxable year, and
``(B) shall be allowed only to the extent of the
gains from such transactions during such taxable year.
``(2) Special rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `losses from wagering transactions' includes any deduction
otherwise allowable under this chapter incurred in carrying on
any wagering transaction.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

good idea. narc on people so political grifters have more money to punt on pointless wars and killing people for no reason.

Pretty sure my neighbor's parents died because of the Qatar gifted plane to Trump. But they were bad people according to neighbor, so it's a conflicting issue.

Lol

"It doesn't say you can deduct 90% of your total losses. It says your deduction is capped at 90% of your total winnings." is what you posted

Again, this is backwards, and wrong

The last President to read every page of a bill he signed was Mallard Fillmore.

This is my interpretation as I read it:

If you have $100,000 in losses, you can claim up to $90,000 in losses for tax purposes, provided you have at least $90,000 in winnings.

So, if you have $100,000 in actual losses and:

$50,000 in winnings, you can claim $50,000 in losses and net gambling income of $0
$80,000 in winnings, you can claim $80,000 in losses and net gambling income of $0
$90,000 in winnings, you can claim $90,000 in losses and net gambling income of $0
$100,000 in winnings, you can claim $90,000 in losses and net gambling income of $10,000
$120,000 in winnings, you can claim $90,000 in losses and net gambling income of $30,000
...and so on.

Yes? If no, then please give concrete examples instead of just telling everyone they are wrong.

Correct, you can deduct 90% of losses, up to 100% of wins

he's 100 percent right. i'd be shocked if in a few years sports betting and poker sites don't have w2gs or some sort of tax forms for gambling wins and losses making it way easier for the gov't to track everything.

of course letter of the law you're right but in practice people will use offshore sites/ bookies and use crypto/cash which is way harder to track than bank deposits and withdrawals.

Even you yourself mention poker tournaments. ACR isn't sending out tax forms for cashes over the threshold (5k profit I think) the legal sites are.

You're being a dick, while being clearly and obviously wrong. I get it though, you have comprehension issues.

Let me help, I'll chew the food for you.

To the extent of such gains does not mean "Only if you're winning". As gamblers, according to the IRS you must log your daily wins and losses, even a slot player would be required to itemize if they want to deduct their losses legally.

So daily sessions mean if you gambled 10 days in a year, with 3 winning days and 7 losing days. On your winning days you net $100k, on your losing days you lost $150k, well, you can deduct $90k of that.

If you're still confused, read this again, read any article on the subject, consult your favorite AI, or sacrifice a goat to whatever God you serve and ask for clarity.

``(d) Wagering Losses.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of losses from wagering
transactions, the amount allowed as a deduction for any taxable
year--
``(A) shall be equal to 90 percent of the amount of
such losses during such taxable year, and
``(B) shall be allowed only to the extent of the
gains from such transactions during such taxable year.

you should pay your taxes to avoid getting in serious trouble. but lmao@ trying to make it a moral issue. these crooks are bought and paid for corporate schills who tax spend and print money with no accountability.

Not a 10k tax bill in this case. A tax bill on 10k in income which is very different.

You can deduct 90% of losses, up to 100% of wins. Your deduction is not capped at 90% of wins. There is a difference.

In your example, you would be allowed a deduction of $100K.

I probably did come off as a dick at first. Apologies.

But you are overcomplicating things. You need to just go back and read through what you yourself are posting.

If you lose $150K, the amount you can deduct is $135K, up to the amount of winnings, or in your example $100K.

None of any of this affects me in any way, but I don't understand how the wording is being interpreted as it is. It says "to the extent of the gains", not "to the extent of 90% of the gains".

If you lose 130K, you can deduct up to 90%*130K = 117K OR the amount of your gains (wins), whichever is smaller.

Ya it isn't capped at 90% of wins.

2 scenarios:

1.) $100,000 won and lost $110,000 in a year would only be permitted to claim $99,000 in deductible losses, meaning they would have a taxable income of $1,000 even though they did not net profit on their wagers.

2.) $110,00 won and lost $100,000 in a year, their taxable profit would be $20,000 (a 100% increase).

Your interpretation is not right under the clear language of the law. You can deduct (A) “90 percent of the amount up losses”; seperately (B) “only to the extent of gains”.

So you take 90 percent of your losses. If this number is greater than (100% of) your gains, you owe nothing from gambling. If this number is less than your gains, you owe tax on the difference.

In the example you gave, where you have $150k in losses, you can deduct $135k of this. If you only have $100k in gains, you can only deduct up to $100k. But you still owe zero tax from gambling (assuming you itemize, which in this case, you certainly would).

Apologies for being a dick on my end as well.

Bills are intentionally confusing, but section (B) directs you to apply the calculation on your gains, not on your losses. So instead of $135k being the number in your example, while that is 90% of your losses, the 90% rule is applied to your gains.

This is why everyone is up in arms over phantom income. Because you lose, but you still have to pay. It's going over how your deduction is applied, it's a 90% deduction, and it's applied to the extent of your gains. Meaning it's calculated based on your gains number, prior to any losses being factored in.

You have 100k wins, you have 150k losses, the 90% is applied on the 100k. You have $10k income for tax purposes.

No, it doesn’t.
Section A allows a deduction of up to 90% of your losses.
Section B caps this amount at your total gains.
At no point does it say anything about 90% of your gains.

-- Losses from wagering transactions, the amount allowed as a deduction is...

-- 90% of such losses during a year (Not 100%)

--- The 90% deduction shall be allowed only to the extent of such gains.

It is calculated off of gains, not your total losses. 90% of your gains. That's the rule. You can think of how it's applied now as well. It's 100% right now up to the extent of gains. That's how you deduct. This changes is to 90%.

Can a cash game player who is qualified to use schedule "C" still use allowable expenses to reduce and/or eliminate altogether any tax liabilities?

Example under the new rules:

Winnings = $12000
Losses = $9000 --> Limited to 90% so now $8100
Net = $12000 - $8100 = $3900
Say one has additional benefits of High Hands and/or other promotions of $2500
Revised Taxable Amount = $3900 + $2500 = $6400

Schedule "C" allows certain things (like driving) to be claimed as expenses.
If one drives 15000 miles per year (exclusive to poker activity) and the current year's rates are $0.60 per mile, one would have $9000 in expenses to off-set any taxable income. In this specific case, $9000 is greater than $6400, so one would have no tax liability from poker, correct?

Somehow a Trump supporter being unable to properly use ''their'' and ''they're'' is not so surprising anymore.

We can't organize and unify against the government unless some ground truths are accepted.

A Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House wrote this bill and pushed it through. Every single Democrat voted against it.

It's delusional to make a "both sides are screwing us over" argument when one side voted for a bill that's an existential threat to poker, and the other side unanimously voted against it.

Unity and organization would mean rallying behind politicians who are opposed to this, in this case it's democrats.

What's stopping unity and organization is not bickering, but the delusions and derangements of members of the cult of Trump, who simply refuse to believe their lying eyes when the evidence is right in front of them that Republicans ****ed us over and Democrats tried to stop it.

If you want unity and organization, then you need to rally behind politicians who are in your corner, which is the Democrats. But you don't want unity and organization, you are part of a cult where the Democrats are _always_ in the wrong, even when objective reality defies you. We can't have unity and organization if a significant percentage of the people we're trying to organize are part of a deranged cult where they pick delusions and feelings over objective facts.

The ultimate irony of your call to organize and not let us get divided is that your argument is itself very divisive, arguing that we should still be divided amongst "both sides", when in reality one side voted unanimously to stop this problem and one side voted almost unanimously to push it through. Arguing "both sides are bad" is both untrue and itself highly divisive.

I was gonna buy Barts training course to improve my game but now I don’t see a point in trying to be a winning player anymore