‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ potentially very bad for poker (players) in the US + STAY ON TOPIC!!
This makes Black Friday look like a children’s birthday party.
There’s no chance this passes right? It would
Grok summary:
Rep. Mark Amodei (in a December 27 Nevada Independent article) said he's been "assured" the fix will be included when Congress handles FY2026 appropriations (which typically get negotiated and passed early in the calendar year, often January–March). He's working with others on it and even followed up with Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith recently.There's real bipartisan momentum: strong support from Nevada's delegation, casino CEOs (who met with Smith in December), the American Gaming Association, and Smith himself (who still calls the 90% cap a "mistake" and says there's a path forward). Many expect it to get attached to a must-pass bill like appropriations.
The main concern with the “Big Beautiful Bill” seems to be the cap on loss deductions at 90% of winnings. That effectively means a player could be breakeven or even losing overall and still owe taxes, which is a big shift from how poker income has traditionally been treated in the US.
The main concern with the "Big Beautiful Bill" seems to be the cap on loss deductions at 90% of winnings. That effectively means a player could be breakeven or even losing overall and still owe taxes, which is a big shift from how poker income has traditionally been treated in the US.
It's not 90% of winnings, it's 90% of losses.
LOLOLOL. Because online doesn't count??? Lol.
The main concern with the "Big Beautiful Bill" seems to be the cap on loss deductions at 90% of winnings. That effectively means a player could be breakeven or even losing overall and still owe taxes, which is a big shift from how poker income has traditionally been treated in the US.
It's not 90% of winnings, it's 90% of losses.
He stated it correctly. The cap for your loss deductions is 90% of your W-2G winnings. If your W-2G winnings are 100k, the cap for loss deductions is 90k. Not sure why you're attempting to correct him here.
He stated it correctly. The cap for your loss deductions is 90% of your W-2G winnings. If your W-2G winnings are 100k, the cap for loss deductions is 90k. Not sure why you're attempting to correct him here.
No. The cap is 90% of your losses (not winnings) limited by winnings. 100k winnings and 200k losses, you can deduct 100k. (and not sure why you state only W-2G winnings.........all winnings are winnings, not just W-2G).
No really sure why you are attempting to correct me here.
He stated it correctly. The cap for your loss deductions is 90% of your W-2G winnings. If your W-2G winnings are 100k, the cap for loss deductions is 90k. Not sure why you're attempting to correct him here.
"He" is almost certainly a bot, BTW.
Swing and a miss on the attempt to restore full deduction of losses.
He stated it correctly. The cap for your loss deductions is 90% of your W-2G winnings. If your W-2G winnings are 100k, the cap for loss deductions is 90k. Not sure why you're attempting to correct him here.
No. The cap is 90% of your losses (not winnings) limited by winnings. 100k winnings and 200k losses, you can deduct 100k. (and not sure why you state only W-2G winnings...
This is 100% wrong and you are misleading people with bad information.
The reason it’s worded as 90% of your losses is because that is what you’re deducting. In previous years including for 2025 filings, you could write off 100% of your losses (not to exceed the amount of your W2Gs, or 1099Gs as they were called in previous years before recently). For 2026 and beyond, you can only deduct losses at 90% of your W2Gs. If you have 100k in W2Gs and lost 200k in reality, you can only deduct 90k in losses not 100k. That’s the reason this whole thing is so frustrating to poker players to begin with. You’re showing a $10k profit for taxation purposes even though you lost 100k.
If you had 100k in W2Gs and 200k in losses and could still write off 100k then nobody would give a shit about the tax change. You could never write off more than your W2G amounts anyways so why would it matter if the cap was 90% of 200k?
This is 100% wrong and you are misleading people with bad information.The reason it's worded as 90% of your losses is because that is what you're deducting. In previous years including for 2025 filings, you could write off 100% of your losses (not to exceed the amount of your W2Gs, or 1099Gs as they were called in previous years before recently). For 2026 and beyond, you can
Grok states otherwise. 100k in winnings and 200k in Losses results in no tax liability.
W2-G winnings isn't even the measure of your winnings. All gambling wins are income, even if they do not meet the threshold for issuance of a W2-G.
Please don't rely on AI for this.
Here is the language:
(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.
While the language of the legislation might be somewhat confusing, by far the most straightforward interpretation of this is that you can deduct 90% of your losses, unless this amount if greater than (100% of) your gambling winnings, in which case you can deduct (100% of) your gambling winnings.
So someone with 100k in winnings and 200k in losses could indeed deduct 100k.
Obviously this has never been tested in court, but I see no reason why this wouldn't be their interpretation as well.
By all means, let Grok do your taxes!
Please don't rely on AI for this. Here is the language:(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 t
Maybe a mod can start deleting these posts so we don't spread misinformation? If you have W2Gs totaling 100k and you legitimately have 200k in losses, you will be able to write of 90% of losses based on your total in W2Gs. You can write off 90k.
Again, please stop spreading misinformation. I work in tax preparation if you want me to tell you how I know. But you don't need to use me as a source - do your own research please and come back.
You could previously write off 100% of your W2G winnings as losses if you itemized. If you had a $5, 000 W2G for 2025 and entered a $5, 000 gambling loss in your tax software, you would be paying federal taxes on the full $5, 000 W2G because your itemizations would not be enough to overcome the standard deduction of $15, 750 for a person filing single. If you had $10, 000 worth of W2Gs plus $3000 of property tax and $4000 of mortgage interest (or any other combination of expenses that are allowed to be itemized to get you over the standard deduction), then you could write off the $10, 000 worth of W2Gs as losses.
Where the bill says 90% but only up to the amount of your winnings, they are referring to the gross amount of losses vs. winnings and then at that point of matching those numbers, that is when you will then multiply by 90%. If your winnings are $30, 000 and your losses are $60, 000, then the "only up to the amount of your winnings" is $30, 000 and then you multiply that by 90% and $27, 000 is the amount you can then deduct as losses.
Here's a good example from a CPA website I found for reference to explain what I stated above:
https://www.landmarkcpas.com/new-gambling-loss-deduction-rules/
This is 100% wrong and you are misleading people with bad information.The reason it's worded as 90% of your losses is because that is what you're deducting. In previous years including for 2025 filings, you could write off 100% of your losses (not to exceed the amount of your W2Gs, or 1099Gs as they were called in previous years before recently). For 2026 and beyond, you can
Glass houses warning....
Casinos don't and never did issue 1099Gs. Those are issued by the gov't for certain payments.
Casinos can, did, do sometimes issues 1099Misc for prizes not related to a specific bet. For poker this would include IIRC BBJP payouts. These have NOT been switched to W2Gs.
W2Gs are "income" documentation. You will get these for direct winnings like slot jackpots, poker tournament winnings, etc. These are also not new. been around quite awhile.
You were not and are not limited by the total of your W2Gs. You were limited to total winnings (how you are limited varies on how you file). You can have winnings much much larger than your W2Gs, especially if you are playing cash not tournaments.
The OBBB change is now you are limited to writing off 90% of your wins amount. Previously this was up to 100% of the winnings but again, you can have winnings MUCH greater than aggregate W2Gs.
Don't blindly trust Grok or any AI chatbot on anything important. They are wonderful at presenting highly inaccurate information with extreme confidence.
They will also often answer your question accurately but fail to tell you that the answer isn't really applicable because you didn't phrase the question precisely correct to get the answer you needed.
This is particularly true when the underlying situation is new or changing like is the case for the OBBB.
In this case, Grok is wrong for 2026 tax year and beyond. It is REALLY going to hit tournament poker grinders
maybe or maybe not. Some of those randos will far out pace Grok. The trick is identifying those randos who are better than Grok
Please don't rely on AI for this. Here is the language:(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.While the l
Your interpretation is aligned with how it has been for years before OBBB. But if it was still true a) why did they introduce the 90% limit? Why are so many poker players so upset with the phantom income and associated tax.
Your interpretation is aligned with how it has been for years before OBBB. But if it was still true a) why did they introduce the 90% limit? Why are so many poker players so upset with the phantom income and associated tax.
Agreed. Also, wagering losses was already clearly defined in the tax law. Wagering losses as defined by the poster above are unchanged, and the 90% thus applies to the number below which is why this bill is an issue. If you could still just deduct 100k in the example above then nobody would be upset with the changes.
§ 1.165-10 Wagering losses.
Losses sustained during the taxable year on wagering transactions shall be allowed as a deduction but only to the extent of the gains during the taxable year from such transactions. In the case of a husband and wife making a joint return for the taxable year, the combined losses of the spouses from wagering transactions shall be allowed to the extent of the combined gains of the spouses from wagering transactions.
As far as gambling income, yes, a person can include a larger amount of winnings and are not limited in reporting those winnings based solely on their total gross of W2G winnings. And yes, by only reporting those gross W2G amounts as winnings they would actually be in violation of current tax law as they would not reporting correctly. My examples referencing W2Gs were simply because that is the lowest possible tax liability amounts and the easiest to follow along for the sake of understanding the changes to the tax law. While you can be penalized for underreporting poker income by the IRS, the W2Gs amount as it equates to winning is a realistic basis that a tournament player would use for reporting their income while most of them seem to ignore net cash income when it's a a small or negligible amount of profit or loss.
It was just a joke, but seriously, you really do not want to rely on AI for how to interpret tax code or to do your taxes
This isn't dissimilar to using AI to diagnose yourself for a health issue. It can lead to catastrophic errors
Maybe a mod can start deleting these posts so we don't spread misinformation If you have W2Gs totaling 100k and you legitimately have 200k in losses, you will be able to write of 90% of losses based on your total in W2Gs. You can write off 90k. Again, please stop spreading misinformation. I work in tax preparation if you want me to tell you how I know. But you don't need t
Can you post the IRS guidance that leads you to this conclusion? The link you posted is internally inconsistent and seems to come to both conclusions. I.e. is says:
Starting in 2026, you can only deduct 90% of your losses—and only up to the amount of your winnings.
Which again suggest you can deduct 90% of your losses, but only if that 90% is less than your winnings. Not that you can deduct 90% of you winnings if your losses are greater.
Just because you work in tax preparation doesn’t mean you know how the IRS will interpret this unless there is an actual regulation or guidance from the IRS (or a court case interpreting it, which obviously doesn’t exist yet).
Agreed. Also, wagering losses was already clearly defined in the tax law. Wagering losses as defined by the poster above are unchanged, and the 90% thus applies to the number below which is why this bill is an issue. If you could still just deduct 100k in the example above then nobody would be upset with the changes.
People who have significantly more losses than winnings will not be affected by the change (under my interpretation, which I strongly believe is supported by the text of the statute). But if your wins are either greater than your losses, or they are approximately equal, then your tax liability will be greater under the change.
