Posts tagged as:

gambling

When it comes to Super Bowl, folks think chili, beer and commercials. They also think gambling. It’s one of those games that inspires a lot of big money, sure, but also enormous numbers of side bets and the ubiquitous office pools.

What does gambling have to do with tax? Plenty. Gambling winnings, no matter whether the source of your winnings are legal, are fully taxable and must be reported on your tax return. Winnings include proceeds from lotteries, raffles, horse races, casinos, cash winnings (just ask Richard Hatch) and the fair market value of prizes such as trips and cars (remember Oprah’s infamous Pontiac giveaway tax flap?).

And if you lose? Well, hopefully you won something along the way. You can only deduct gambling losses if you itemize deductions on your tax return on a Schedule A and the amount of losses cannot be more than the amount of gambling income that you reported on your return. To prove this, it’s important to keep accurate records of your gambling winnings and losses. If you have legal winnings, the form that is used to report winnings and losses of varying amounts (depending on the kind of game) to the IRS is a form W2-G.

So, all of this doesn’t apply to you, right? I’m *betting* that it does. Experts estimate that over $10 billion (yes with a “b”) will be wagered on Super Bowl XLII – and over 50% of all adult Americans will participate.

All of that said, what is the official line on the Super Bowl? The Patriots are the favorites to win by 12 points.

I did a little informal poll on the Business Channel. Here’s what a few of my bloggers think:

Kelly (that’s me): Patriots 35, Giants 28
Phil at slackermanager.com: Patriots 42, Giants 20
Chris at doingbizabroad.com: Patriots 31, Giants 28
Thursday at onevotematters.com: Patriots 42-48, Giants 28-34 (the original spreadsheet had 6 point blocks)

Rico at contract-worker.com (who doesn’t even follow “American football” but graciously participated anyway) has chosen Eli Manning as his MVP pick.

Check back on Monday!

{ 0 comments }

You’ve always known that you’re supposed to report your gambling winnings on your taxes, right? Well, the IRS is making it a little easier (for them) to make sure that happens.

Beginning March 4, 2008, casinos and other sponsors of poker tournaments will be required to report most winnings to winners and the Internal Revenue Service. After that date, the IRS will require all tournament sponsors to report tournament winnings of more than $5,000.

In order to ensure compliance, tournament winners must provide their taxpayer identification number (in most cases, a Social Security number) to the tournament sponsor. Failure to provide a taxpayer identification number means that the tournament sponsor must automatically withhold 28% of winnings for tax purposes.

Your call.

{ 0 comments }

Next in my movie review series is one of my favorite movies, Trading Places, and not just because it was filmed in Philadelphia. While the plot is quite contrived, the acting is really funny – it’s Eddie Murphy back when he remembered what being a comedian meant. And Jamie Lee Curtis? This was just the beginning of a great comedic career for her (I loved her in True Lies).

512wrt19n5l_aa240_.jpg

[Here’s my disclaimer: As always, I’ll try my best not to give out any big spoiler type info - but I can’t promise. So, you’ve been warned!]

The Background

The movie focuses initially on two brothers, Mortimer and Randolph Duke, played wonderfully by Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy, who are both rich and bored – not a great combination. As a social experiment, they make a bet. They plot to improve the life of a poor man, Billy Ray Valentine (played by Eddie Murphy) at the expense of a successful man, Louis Winthorpe III (played by Dan Ackroyd). Mortimer believes that no matter what challenges are thrown at the men, they will remain true to their social standings. Randolph believes that each will adapt.

The Switch

The brothers choose Louis because he is an employee at their firm and has a respectable background – the perfect subject. His position at the firm makes it easy to ruin him: the brothers make it look as though he has stolen from the company and then plant drugs on him. The brothers proceed to freeze Louis’ bank accounts and lock him out of his home. Penniless and accused of crime, Louis has nowhere to go – until a jailed hooker, Ophelia, (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) takes pity on him and takes him home.

At the same time, Billy Ray Valentine is picked up from jail by Mortimer and Randolph. They tell Billy Ray that he will be part of their program to assist the underprivileged. In reality, they plop him in the middle of Louis’ old life.

As before, my tax radar is on the second I hear anyone discussing gambling and prostitution (yeah, see if you read that on TaxProf blog). All earned income must be reported, even if illegally gained. That means that Billy Ray should have been reporting his hustlings and Ophelia should have been reporting her, um, hustlings. It also means that Mortimer and Randolph would also have to report their winnings, if any, from their bet (it’s important to note that they don’t tell us the amount of the bet in the beginning – it’s just “the usual amount”).

The Transition

Once a hustler, always a hustler. It doesn’t take Billy Ray long to figure out that the market is much like gambling – and he begins to shine at the firm.

Billy Ray learns to make money because he understands the commodities market – buy low, sell high. Capital gains, for these purposes, would likely be short term and would be calculated based on the selling price less the buying price. However, the firm deals largely with futures. I won’t even attempt to explain the taxation of futures (anyone?).

But when it comes to income, assuming that Billy Ray is being paid a salary, which is taxable, he would also have to consider the source of his other trappings. And this is where my analysis gets a little bit hazy. Billy Ray begins to live in Louis’ house. It’s clearly not a gift from Louis – but I’m not sure what it else it would be since that part isn’t really explained in the film. If the home was somehow part of the compensation package of being at the firm, then the fair market value of the perks would be reportable as income. It can’t be a gift from the brothers while he’s an employee; remember that usually, employers can’t make significant non-taxable gifts to employees.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Louis grows more desperate despite his association with Ophelia, the stereotypical hooker with a heart of gold. While Ophelia is making some, um, income, on her own, it appears that Louis is stealing and begging. Louis would still be responsible for reporting the income from his activities.

At the pawn shop, however, Louis takes a loss on the sale of his fancy watch. While sales of personal property are generally excepted from capital gains, items that are considered artwork, collectible or appreciated property may be includable. I’m not sure where a watch would fall in this argument but it’s worth noting that selling a watch valued at nearly $7000 in 1983 isn’t quite the same as selling your old jeans at a yard sale.

The Climax

Christmas serves as the backdrop for the pivotal scene in the movie. At the firm Christmas party, a boozed up Louis shows up with a gun. Mortimer realizes that he has lost the bet (which turned out to be $1 – still reportable!) and confesses his loss to Randolph. However, Billy Ray overhears the brothers, is offended by their scheme and decides to turn the tables.

The Turnabout

Billy Ray plots with Louis to teach the brothers a lesson. I won’t spill the entire scene, but suffice it to say that Billy Ray and Louis end up doing okay – and the brothers? Well, they won’t be drinking any freshly squeezed orange juice for awhile.

While I don’t want to give away anymore, remember that income from all sources is taxable – and losses, even giant ones, can be carried forward. But at the brothers’ ages, that kind of carry forward probably doesn’t mean a whole lot.

The Skinny

The movie was nominated for review by Madgirl. Remember that your comments will count as votes for Madgirl – and she can win some great prizes. So tell me what you think about the movie, the review, the locale…

And if you want in on the action, be sure and leave your suggestions on the original post – or send me an email.

{ 0 comments }

I know, my husband is probably hunched over his PowerBook in disbelief (though probably also mumbling that Tocchet never won us a championship…) about Rick Tocchet.

As previously reported, former Philadelphia Flyers star Rick Tocchet has been charged with masterminding an elaborate and illegal gambling ring in New Jersey. The charges could have landed him in prison for up to ten years.

In a surprising move, despite his prior protestations of innocence, sources indicate that Tocchet will likely plead guilty today. A guilty plea will likely result in a reduced sentence.

But I’m betting (pun completely intended) that Tocchet’s troubles are far from over. Money earned from illegal activities is still subject to taxation. And if the money involved in this case is anywhere near the multi-millions claimed by the state (reports include allegations of over $1m per month), you can wager that the IRS is waiting in the wings.

{ 0 comments }

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Gambling Losses

17 November 2006

It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday!
Casinos are headed to Pennsylvania and many other states this year as revenue raisers for state governments.  Winnings are taxable.  If you lose, you can only deduct to the extent of your winnings and only if you itemize.
This week’s question: 
Should gambling losses be deductible?  Should there be limits on [...]

1 comment Read the full article →

Taking a gamble…

9 February 2006

The latest gambling saga to come our way involves mostly NHL athletes, including former Philadelphia Flyers Rick Tocchet and Jeremy Roenick, as well as former great Wayne Gretsky’s wife, Janet Jones.  While Tocchet has been fingered as being a ringleader in the multimillion dollar racket, Roenick and Jones have been identified as merely being "involved."
But [...]

0 comments Read the full article →