Arcimede$ IRS Transcripts

[Alan Mendelson]

I wonder if I should prohibit the word "mathlete" from this forum. I don't want anyone from the WOV forums accusing me of using it.

[james40]

You wanna come back at me...you phony AP mope?

Only an insecure mathlete would show his tax returns to prove that he had won $1 per hour.

Now go get your shine box jerkoff.

Good to have you back Rob.

[coach belly]

Good to have you back Rob.

Better go back to watching cartoons with your bong sonny...if one-liners are all you can manage.

[redietz]

I played on the Penn State math department grad intramural basketball team. Does that qualify me as a mathlete? Pretty please? I wanna be a mathlete.

[james40]

Better go back to watching cartoons with your bong sonny...if one-liners are all you can manage.

Better get back to watching Matlock with your metamucil pops, if weak insults are all you can manage.

[arcimede$]

You wanna come back at me...you phony AP mope?
Only an insecure mathlete would show his tax returns to prove that he had won $1 per hour.

If you had any kind of smarts you would have already put 2 and 2 together to figure out what I've actually won. I won't hold my breath.

[Dan Druff]

I was on the mathletes team in high school in the 80s.

[Rob.Singer]

Instead of all the asserting by the dummies here, I'll give a helping hand, and for a few it'll feel like a slap across the face. And Mickey, how many drunken posts does it take where no one cares about your "I'm a hardened idiot gambler who's been thru the hard knocks and remains a worthless bum" posts and no one replies to them because of it before you get the hint?

What of my "tax returns" that I originally offered? Well, it's already been said maybe a dozen times but here it is again. I offered my ten professional gambler Schedule C years (2000-2009) because those are the years the challenge was for the last time and those are the years people seem to be interested in. But after having my contact at the IRS check earlier this week, 2000-2008 are definitely no longer available because we're now in 2016. That leaves only 2009, and aside from the fact that arci said one year proves nothing, I found I did not file a C that year because I only played vp professionally until the end of April.

So what about the last four years of these "transcripts" that were never a part of the original challenge? I played very little in 2014 although I won. I won big in 2012 + 2013 and 2011 also had a net profit. However, when Alan says he believes there's info on the transcripts that would be taken wrong, he's correct. For a hypothetical instance, what winner in their right mind doesn't mitigate their claimed win on the 1040 with an equal amount of losses on Schedule A? Arci? Ha! Have you seen his "wins"? So no, I'd never produce useless transcripts.

Next, let's get back to the ones Alan posted about. If you go back to at a minimum 2012's & 2013's postings by arci there's proof even he--Mr. "Nothing but the facts"--lied on his tax returns. You'll notice his claimed gross wins for both years were $4000, before losses. Those were both from dollar royals. Yet this prolific AP boaster gave multiple accounts of his brute-like trip profitting from other than those 2 royals, and even his posts on losing trips contradict what those stupid transcripts say. At the very least, he went against very clear tax law that states ALL wins must be reported, and not just W2G wins. Arci's collar does not match his cuffs, so to speak.

Yes he says coy things like "if anyone has a brain they'd figure out what I actually won" just to be like Obama and pretend people can't figure it out because no one's as smart as him. But the bottom line is arci really committed video poker-BS suicide by being stupid enough to post such anemic numbers after having such a big mouth all these years. He has to be such a weak player even Tanya Harding would be laughing at him. He knows I can't get thru the day without a splitting sideache!

Let him now come back and do what he does best--tell as many lies as it takes in order for him to feel he doesn't look bad to those who mean the most to him in his sorriful life: a bunch of anonymous forum posters.

I'll still be LMAO!!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, are you sure about this:

That leaves only 2009, and aside from the fact that arci said one year proves nothing, I found I did not file a C that year because I only played vp professionally until the end of April.

I think if you had a business running from let's say January 1 through April 30, you'd still file a Schedule C for that business. If you didn't file a Schedule C for those four months that you had your business it meant that you didn't deduct your business expenses such as travel, gas, hotel, tips, meals, phone calls, etc.

Next point:

Next, let's get back to the ones Alan posted about. If you go back to at a minimum 2012's & 2013's postings by arci there's proof even he--Mr. "Nothing but the facts"--lied on his tax returns. You'll notice his claimed gross wins for both years were $4000, before losses. Those were both from dollar royals. Yet this prolific AP boaster gave multiple accounts of his brute-like trip profitting from other than those 2 royals, and even his posts on losing trips contradict what those stupid transcripts say. At the very least, he went against very clear tax law that states ALL wins must be reported, and not just W2G wins.

This is true about what the tax laws say. You are supposed to report all wins and then offset the wins with losses on Schedule A. However, what we need to know is if Arc kept daily logs and it's possible that his daily logs netted out to zero or a loss except for what appears to be a W2G amount.

So, if I have "wins" during a day where they total $800 but then lose $800 I am not going to write in my daily log a win of $800 and then a loss of $800. I am simply going to write "even" and use that for my taxes for the year. And this is why we have to know what system Arc used.

Now, if a player goes home each day with small wins of $319 (arbitrary figure) and doesn't include that in his taxes because it is not represented by a W2G that taxpayer would be violating the IRS rules.

Each year I report more than my W2G totals -- and that additional amount represents the DAYS when I went home with a profit even though it was not an amount reflected by a W2G.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, except for the fact that his posts claim this or that loss on certain days and this or that win on certain days. And that's what his contemporaneous gambling log should say, if any of it's true as written. It's painfully obvious he didn't think any of this through before setting what turned out nicely to be his own trap again.

I suspect his log is true but he chose only to report the W2G winners as wins to keep his AGI from growing and take his chances on any audit happening, which is tax evasion. And by posting such a silly little win each year instead of his true loss he likely thought he was taking the attention away from his fictitious AGI. Either way, the supposed profit is pitiful for such a big talker, and it's so funny because there's really not much to talk about other than the lies. He must've learned from Dancer.

[arcimede$]

There was a discussion over on vpfree many years ago about what to report on taxes. There are many opinions. One person told a story of being extremely diligent and reporting exactly what their total session wins were. It turned out the total wins were less than their w2g total for that year. They ended up getting audited and had to pay taxes and a penalty on the difference between the two values. A tax lawyer suggested that the best approach was to simply report the w2g wins (or more if your yearly win was greater) and that would eliminate the problem. Almost everyone agreed.

Since that time that is what I have done. I report losses that produce the actual yearly win. Yes, I could report more wins and more losses. The bottom line would still be the same net gambling win.

The fact is if you followed the letter of the law, you should report each and every won and lost bet. This would total millions for any regular gambler. The IRS recognizes that this would mean that any person who gambles just once during the year is likely to be in violation of the law. Hence, the only check they make is that you report an amount equal to or greater than the w2g total. That is how they appear to interpret the law so that is how I report my results. To me the year is simply one long session. What I believe should be reported is just the net win. The IRS is taxing us for money we never won. Most just accept it as a sin tax.

It is hilarious that Singer couldn't stay away. Not surprising for a person with NPD. You can bet he was still reading every word. His need to boost his ego could not be held in check very long. What's even funnier is, like belly boy, he couldn't put 2 and 2 together so I guess that does mean he's not very sharp. I'll try to help hum out.

I posted my RF counts several times over the past years. Clearly, in years where that count is down my wins will be lower. However, that also means that in the years where the count was higher my wins would be much more. Given what I had previously posted (only 2 royals in over 500K hands), then anyone with half a brain would realize that any win in those years is a sign of a very large edge. That would also mean in years where I had more royals my wins would be much greater. It was obvious from the numbers Alan posted that the very years where I was experiencing that drought were the years 2011-2014 (the actual period was 8/14/2011 through 12/1/2014). Keep in mind there were also an extended time during that period where I didn't gamble at all (5/13-10/14).

Finally, Singer could have provided his real returns for 2008-2010 over the past few months. I only provided 2011-2014 as part of my request for 2004-2014. They were never the primary focus. As I've stated many times, I will provide the 08-10 years if Singer simply sends Alan $150 to hold or goes ahead and sends in for the IRS to send Alan those returns. No one cares about the other years. I think they are all may still be available up until April of this year.

Now, we all know that Singer will NEVER comply. He is a a total fake. He never won squat so he can never prove he won a thing. He lived in a small apartment the entire time he claimed to be a big winner while he also claimed his wife was pulling in a 6 figure income. Then, it appears they were evicted for not paying the rent. Does that sound like a family pulling in two million dollars over 10 years?

You blew it, Robbie. You have now proven beyond any doubt that you are a long time addicted loser.

[Alan Mendelson]

Two items here I need to question and hopefully a tax expert will chime in. First:

Yes, I could report more wins and more losses. The bottom line would still be the same net gambling win.

Yes, your bottom line for gambling would be the same but that doesn't follow what the IRS wants you to do and that lowers your adjusted gross income. When you have a lower AGI it means Schedule A deductions are worth more. By not following the IRS procedure you are making your Schedule A deductions more valuable and lowering your overall tax bill.

Now the second:

The fact is if you followed the letter of the law, you should report each and every won and lost bet.

I don't think that's true at all. I never heard of a requirement that every bet must be logged as to win or loss. All I ever heard of was a requirement for "daily logs" or some sort of daily tally of gaming. I simply keep together markers and ATM slips with a note of my net results for each day; W2Gs are kept separately and I total them up.

[arcimede$]

I don't think that's true at all. I never heard of a requirement that every bet must be logged as to win or loss. All I ever heard of was a requirement for "daily logs" or some sort of daily tally of gaming. I simply keep together markers and ATM slips with a note of my net results for each day; W2Gs are kept separately and I total them up.

If you read the actual law this is how it reads ... ALL wins should be reported. The law says nothing about sessions/days/etc.. It is completely ambiguous.

Now, the IRS realizes this is impossible to administer fairly so they "interpret" the law to mean whatever they think they can administer fairly. No one is really told how they "interpret" the law so it is really up to each individual to do what they think is right. From all the information I could gather the IRS only checks to see if your return contains the w2g wins. Hence, that is how I "interpret" the law. YMMV.

Remember, in 99+% of the cases the w2g win is actually higher than the net win/loss a person sees in a year. Hence, in reality your AGI is actually HIGHER than what you really made. Rather than getting more schedule A deductions you are getting LESS. We all know that the gambling tax laws are completely unfair.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc are you suggesting that if I play $1 video poker and win a million dollars but never get a royal for a W2G then I don't have to report it?

[redietz]

Arc are you suggesting that if I play $1 video poker and win a million dollars but never get a royal for a W2G then I don't have to report it?

This is virtually statistically impossible. If you did this, odds are that the machines are rigged (and pretty blatantly).

So this is like asking, "Are you saying if the sun turns green and fairies come down from heaven, you don't have to pay taxes?"

It's a red herring question -- has no relevance.

P.S. For the record, yes, if the suns turns green and fairies come down from heaven, I ain't paying no taxes. The IRS can sue me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz I didn't think you would take my comments literally.

My point is that Arc seems to be suggesting that unless you get a W2G you don't have to report any wins. Taken to an extreme is he suggesting that even if I won a million bucks without a W2G no wins need to be reported and taxes are needed to be paid?

[arcimede$]

Arc are you suggesting that if I play $1 video poker and win a million dollars but never get a royal for a W2G then I don't have to report it?

Nope, you still have to report at least your net wins. This should be what the IRS requires but it isn't.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nope, you still have to report at least your net wins. This should be what the IRS requires but it isn't.

And therein lies the problem. If everyone did it your way, the AGIs would be lower. I'm not arguing with you -- that's the way I'd like it to be -- but it isn't the way it is.

Because I report so much in GROSS wins all of my Schedule A deductions are worthless. Of course I would like to be able to use my Schedule A deductions to lower my tax bill, but the law says I can't.

Everyone should do what they deem best and good luck.

[regnis]

The law, as Arci correctly states, calls for all wins to be reported. However, years ago after numerous audits, lawsuits, etc. in which arguments were made as to what constituted a "gambling session", it was agreed that each day would constitute a session. As such, you could report your net daily win. The IRS had argued that "all" wins must be reported. The gamblers argued that they should be taxed like any other business on their annual profits. The compromise was that gamblers must report their daily net profit as each day is considered a "session".

If you file as a professional, this is all a mute point. However, for non-professionals using Schedule A, it at least provides a guideline. Now, whether you should only report the W2G's is a different question and there are no guidelines. However, right or wrong, most people only report the W2G's and seem to get away with it. I had one Illinois politician who had between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 in W2G's every year, and each year we zeroed it out on Schedule A. She is now in prison like every other Illinois politician--but not for tax evasion. Of course, in Illinois and some other states, you are taxed (for state income tax purposes) on gross winnings, so you would never report any wins other than W2G's. So yes, this woman was taxed for state of Illinois purposes on the $2,000,000 W2G win, even though she lost money for the year.

[arcimede$]

And therein lies the problem. If everyone did it your way, the AGIs would be lower. I'm not arguing with you -- that's the way I'd like it to be -- but it isn't the way it is.

Because I report so much in GROSS wins all of my Schedule A deductions are worthless. Of course I would like to be able to use my Schedule A deductions to lower my tax bill, but the law says I can't.

Everyone should do what they deem best and good luck.

In my case, prior to about 2010 the AGI was never a factor. My normal income was enough to cancel out any deductions based on income. It might make a difference the last few years where my wife's medical expenses increased.

It turns out that 2010 is a year where my net wins were actually higher than my w2g wins and that is what I reported.

This year I will get nailed on my state taxes because they do have an AGI minimum tax provision.