‘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
BTW, if you really just want to treat CPA websites as authoritative, here’s one that interprets it as I would (literally the first site when I search for this):
Note this scenario they post, which is similar to the one we’re discussing here:
Scenario 2: Small Net Loss
Winnings: $5,000 Losses: $6,000 Allowed loss deduction: $5,400 – Taxable income: -$400 (no tax, but deduction reduced)
Under your interpretation, this person would only be able to deduct $4500, and thus have a taxable income of $500.
In fact, under your interpretation, anyone who won any money gambling at any time would need to pay tax on at least 10% of their winnings regardless of how much they lost.
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
Nope, I'll take the AI answer here. I received a more thorough answer and an indepth example to a specific scenario I presented. You can go with the 6 week part time course graduate tax preparer poster, I'll stick with a more knowledgeable source.
You don’t need an AI answer, you just need to read the law; it’s only like three lines long.
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 yo
I don't think there's any interpretation issues here if all of the existing tax law and the new BBA provision are read in full. The person who previously quoted the new tax changes did not quote it in its entirety:
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.
As stated in the special rule, the term losses from wagering transactions includes any deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter. Prior to the BBA, wagering losses was already defined and I posted the definition above.
Nope, I'll take the AI answer here. I received a more thorough answer and an indepth example to a specific scenario I presented. You can go with the 6 week part time course graduate tax preparer poster, I'll stick with a more knowledgeable source.
You're on here telling people the opposite of what everyone in the poker, sports betting and gambling industries are upset about. Under the scenarios you've described, anyone who loses gambling would never pay taxes unless they basically lost 1-9% more than they won. How do you not see how that makes no sense?
You think Erik Seidel and other pros are reaching out to politicians trying to get this changed and threatening to quit playing because of the small chance that they might pay some taxes if they're a just slightly losing player for the year? (Also, in this scenario, I can't imagine there is anyone who wouldn't just include additional losses from cash sessions, whether they actually exist or not, in a ledger to bridge the small gap from losing a few % to losing just enough that their losses would offset their winnings anyways)
You're on here telling people the opposite of what everyone in the poker, sports betting and gambling industries are upset about. Under the scenarios you've described, anyone who loses gambling would never pay taxes unless they basically lost 1-9% more than they won. How do you not see how that makes no sense You think Erik Seidel and other pros are reaching out to politicia
They are probably trolling but in case not they can thank AI when they can't walk properly when the IRS reams their ass.
Then go for it, man
You're on here telling people the opposite of what everyone in the poker, sports betting and gambling industries are upset about. Under the scenarios you've described, anyone who loses gambling would never pay taxes unless they basically lost 1-9% more than they won. How do you not see how that makes no sense You think Erik Seidel and other pros are reaching out to politicia
People get upset about things that aren't real or accurate all the time. Hell, the fact that this bill is tied to Trump is probably enough to get some people to oppose it no matter what it would have said.
And I'm convinced your interpretation is wrong, but it doesn't affect me either way since I don't gamble.
‘Grok states otherwise’ are definitely the words of a dude who has never gotten a bumble match to meet him for a date
People get upset about things that aren't real or accurate all the time. Hell, the fact that this bill is tied to Trump is probably enough to get some people to oppose it no matter what it would have said.
And I'm convinced your interpretation is wrong, but it doesn't affect me either way since I don't gamble.
Imagine needing to say all these words when you coulda just said ‘**** you, go trump’
You're on here telling people the opposite of what everyone in the poker, sports betting and gambling industries are upset about. Under the scenarios you've described, anyone who loses gambling would never pay taxes unless they basically lost 1-9% more than they won. How do you not see how that makes no sense You think Erik Seidel and other pros are reaching out to politicia
Anyone whose winnings exceed their losses will see their taxes increased under this bill (assuming you were deducting gambling losses and not just taking the standard deduction). And for these people, it doesn’t matter which interpretation we use.
The people who are affected the most are high volume gamblers, for whom their wins and losses are both very large and also tend to balance out. Someone with $2.1M in wins and $2M in losses previously owed tax on the $100k they actually netted, but would now owe tax on $300k. This tends to be the tax profile of pro poker players, which is why they are so upset.
shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions during such taxable year.
Why do people think that means only up to 90% of winnings?
Nope, I'll take the AI answer here. I received a more thorough answer and an indepth example to a specific scenario I presented. You can go with the 6 week part time course graduate tax preparer poster, I'll stick with a more knowledgeable source.
Uh, what? I have no idea who you're referring to. I have my own accountant...
One that does my taxes for me and has done so for decades. Reported income which includes the six figures worth of profit I've made over the years playing poker on the side
Hope you're not this arrogant when you get audited and have to deal with the IRS...sheesh
Incredible how many people:
1) rely on AI without a care in the world
2) authoritatively state things that aren't correct and have literally no support in any law or rule ever (like your losses/winnings on tax forms are tied at all to W2-Gs).
It's pretty clear:
1) wins total 100k, losses total 50k. Can deduct 90% of losses, so deducting $45k, paying taxes on 55k, would have paid taxes on 50k previously
2) wins total 100k, losses total 100k. Deducting $90k, paying taxes on 10k, would have paid taxes on 0 previously
3) wins total 100k, losses total 150k. Can deduct 90% of losses which would be 135k, but loss deduction is capped at total of wins, so deducting 100k, paying taxes on 0
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.
Because deducting only 90% of losses as opposed to 100% means if you are slightly losing or better, you have a higher tax liability than before, and if you are a high-volume player possibly extremely higher than before.
because many people cannot read and understand words
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.
For the first question, how are comps (free meals, rooms, travel, etc.) and freeplay accounted for by a gambler? Is it just "off the books" perks? If so, maybe that's why the 90% rule was added, since the assumption is that the value of some of the losses is already being returned to the gambler.
For the last question:
Winning players will have a larger amount of "taxable wins".
Break-even players (wins = losses) will suddenly have "taxable wins", where they didn't in the past.
Small losing players ((0.9*losses) < wins < losses) will suddenly have "taxable wins" , where they didn't in the past.
Incredible how many people:1) rely on AI without a care in the world2) authoritatively state things that aren't correct and have literally no support in any law or rule ever (like your losses/winnings on tax forms are tied at all to W2-Gs).It's pretty clear:1) wins total 100k, losses total 50k. Can deduct 90% of losses, so deducting $45k, paying taxes on 55k, would have paid ta
Everybody already knew this. But welcome to the conversation.
Obviously from the previous posts, everybody did not in fact know this. People have posted that you can only deduct up to 90% of winnings (false), that you can only deduct losses up to W2-G received (false), that this only matters for slight losers (false), etc.
Incredible how many people:1) rely on AI without a care in the world2) authoritatively state things that aren't correct and have literally no support in any law or rule ever (like your losses/winnings on tax forms are tied at all to W2-Gs).It's pretty clear:1) wins total 100k, losses total 50k. Can deduct 90% of losses, so deducting $45k, paying taxes on 55k, would have paid ta
Yes. This really isn’t that difficult.
Incredible how many people:1) rely on AI without a care in the world2) authoritatively state things that aren't correct and have literally no support in any law or rule ever (like your losses/winnings on tax forms are tied at all to W2-Gs).It's pretty clear:1) wins total 100k, losses total 50k. Can deduct 90% of losses, so deducting $45k, paying taxes on 55k, would have paid ta
This is what AI told me but I was shot down by someone saying he's a tax professional.
To be fair, he said he works in tax preparation.
A receptionist at H&R Block technically works in tax preparation as well, but that doesn't make them an authority on all nuanced tax scenarios.
He was also the one saying opposing views to his need to be deleted from this thread, which is laughable. I'm 99.99% sure HE is wrong, but no one who agrees with me is saying his posts should be deleted, and I'm certainly not advocating for that as well. If anything, they need to absolutely be preserved for future reference and LOLing.
Because deducting only 90% of losses as opposed to 100% means if you are slightly losing or better, you have a higher tax liability than before, and if you are a high-volume player possibly extremely higher than before.
Correct but that is not what the other poster is claiming. He claims, incorrectly, you can continue deducting 100% of losses.
As I noted, he is saying nothing changed yet all the tournament grinders are complaining about the change creating pseudo income
For the first question, how are comps (free meals, rooms, travel, etc.) and freeplay accounted for by a gambler? Is it just "off the books" perks? If so, maybe that's why the 90% rule was added, since the assumption is that the value of some of the losses is already being returned to the gambler.For the last question:Winning players will have a larger amount of "taxable wins"
Comps, free play, gifts, are not considered income. However, some accountants will say they can be used to justify claiming you are professional. But AFAIK they don’t and can’t show up on tax filings.
