Rob Singer has taken his act on the road again.

[redietz]

So how many is not many?...since the Rangers...having met you...thought you were a sissy too.

Well, the poll results were a clean sweep for not being a lowlife, but it was a 2-2 split on being a sissy. It was probably due to entering that Princess Sparkle 5K two years ago. Nobody likes to see a grown dude wearing a tiara during a 5K. I thought it was a ballsy move, as being bald, it hurt like hell every time I took a hard step.

[redietz]

Redietz you should contact the forum owner about the insults. But I wonder why you even bothered making the response?

It makes a reasonable intro to my post regarding "Kings, Queens, and In-Betweens," which I will post tomorrow in the non-LV section. The director will be available after the film tonight, so I'll report on the Q&A.

P.S. It is an AP move, as there is a free reception with food.

[arcimede$]

Thanks to the Internet it is easy to do a Google search and find a pdf of the actual IRS instructions for reporting gambling wins for the tax year 2012. The instructions are:

2012 Form 1040—Lines 21 Through 24
Gambling winnings, including lotteries, raffles, a lump-sum payment from the sale of a right to receive future lottery payments, etc. For details on gambling losses, see the instructions for Schedule A, line 28.

Note that there is nothing here about "adjusting" the gambling winnings because of any interpretation. Indeed ALL winnings were to be reported with deductions for losses on Schedule A.

Based on that, and it has never changed to the best of my knowledge, I wrote this earlier in this thread:
Please note what Arc said in a post above:
So I need some clarification here as to what Arc is saying?

It is the definition of "winnings" that is important. If you take that literally that would mean every single hand where money was returned should be declared "winnings". Since that is ridiculous the IRS was inconsistent for years. Notice that it does not say "daily winnings" or specify any other time frame in the regulation. Essentially, this means the term is ambiguous and when the IRS itself uses W2Gs as their audit factor why would those "winnings" not be the best choice?

The key point is the difference between the 1040 value and Sch. A deduction should be the actual winnings. That is exactly what I've done and it has cost me money more than once.

[arcimede$]

And all that you demonstrated is that YOU are a fraud.
You've admitted to submitting inflated win figures...so you lost in each of the 4 years that you sent to Alan.
Now you want to bet on what your returns show for some other years? LOL
Your returns are all bogus...you've already admitted that...they can't prove that you've won.
If you need $300, go back to hitting up old ladies at the slots for bus money...you bum.

The usual nonsense from mama belly. This clown is getting more and more angry with every comment. I guess being shown to be an impotent liar is really getting to her.

[Alan Mendelson]

It is the definition of "winnings" that is important. If you take that literally that would mean every single hand where money was returned should be declared "winnings". Since that is ridiculous the IRS was inconsistent for years. Notice that it does not say "daily winnings" or specify any other time frame in the regulation. Essentially, this means the term is ambiguous and when the IRS itself uses W2Gs as their audit factor why would those "winnings" not be the best choice?

The key point is the difference between the 1040 value and Sch. A deduction should be the actual winnings. That is exactly what I've done and it has cost me money more than once.

I think you should look at what regnis wrote.

[arcimede$]

I think you should look at what regnis wrote.

What regnis wrote is not what the regulation states. You quoted the regulation.

[Alan Mendelson]

What regnis wrote is not what the regulation states. You quoted the regulation.

You should read what regnis wrote again.

[arcimede$]

You should read what regnis wrote again.

Funny, it still says the same thing. Try to pay attention next time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis told you the law and the interpretation of the law never changed. You said it did. Now read it again Mr Stubborn.

[regnis]

I am not going to do the research for you, but many many years ago the courts, IRS, tax practitioners, and gamblers came to a mutual agreement as to what constitutes a "session" for gambling purposes. It was determined that a session is a day, so that not every single winning bet constitutes a win for tax purposes. Rather, it is the net win for a day. If the net win is $10 that day, it is supposed to be declared. As previously stated, however, there is a tendency for the IRS to think you are cheating if you show more than the W-2G's.

That is the absolute rule that is followed by the IRS.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis thanks. But why would the IRS question as "cheating" if you reported more than what's on the W2Gs? That makes no sense. It's what's required and not every gambling win gets a W2G.

[regnis]

I'm feeling charitable tonight. The following 2 excerpts are from an old IRS audit procedure manual. They have been codified into a somewhat new revenue procedure. But the audit manual has used these rules for as long as I have been involved in gaming law.

1. A session of play begins when a patron places the first wager on a particular type of game and ends when the same patron completes his last wager on the same type of game before the end of the same calendar day. For purposes of the above, the time is determined by the time zone of the location where the patron places the wager. A session of play is always determined with reference to a calendar day (24 hour period from 12:00 A.M. through 11:59 P.M.) and ends no later than the end of that calendar day.

2. The IRS will not challenge a taxpayer’s use of this definition of session of play provided the taxpayer…..
And now I’m paraphrasing---as long as the taxpayer uses the definition for each time he gambles. However, if he leaves the casino and goes to another casino, that constitutes another session.

I personally have never followed that last part.

[regnis]

Regnis thanks. But why would the IRS question as "cheating" if you reported more than what's on the W2Gs? That makes no sense. It's what's required and not every gambling win gets a W2G.

There is nothing in their procedures or audit manuals that instructs them to do this. It is almost like they realize that most people are only going to declare the W-2G winnings, and therefore if you show more winnings, and presumably offset those winnings with additional losses, they assume cheating and then want to see your records or log for the entire year.

I was audited for horse racing 3 straight years. But I keep a complete log of every wager; all losing tickets (I have large barrels in the basement); and a completely separate bank account strictly for horse racing and no other gambling. After three years, and again I think this is an informal internal rule, they won't audit you again for several years. The problem for people like me is that in my state, gross winnings are taxed!!! There is no deduction or offset for losses.

This was the result of the change in the 1040 years ago where the losses went to Schedule A from page 1 where you simply offset the winnings before. The state tax form uses gross income before the Schedule a deductions so you pay state tax on the gross win. I considered and did start an action against the state challenging this, but was told by an insider at the state revenue department that they would take this to the highest court and that they had too much pull for me to win. He also warned me of punitive actions if I persisted. I knew I was beat and dropped it.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've been audited twice but never for gambling. I always declare daily wins that were in excess of W2Gs and nothing happened.

(Scratching my head about this.)

[arcimede$]

Alan, you will definitely get audited if you claim less than W2G wins on the 1040. If you declare more you may or may not get audited. I declared more one year and was not audited but I have heard about others who have been. That is why the best approach to avoid an audit is to report exactly the W2G amount. The definition of a session is not in any regulation. It is an internal IRS "position" but I suspect only used if they think someone is trying to cheat. Like regnis said, most people just report their W2G wins and never keep track of their results so they have no idea what their session results would be.

Now, don't you feel a little foolish for inferring I was cheating?

[Alan Mendelson]

First of all I never declared less than my W2G wins because I did have wins that did not generate W2Gs and I reported them just as the IRS says I should.

I don't know if you cheated on your taxes, Arc. But it appears strange to me that for two years the ONLY wins you reported were the wins from the royals that generated W2Gs. According to the tax documents this means you had no other winning days in those years. Just tell us you had no other winning days in those years and your only winning days came from those royals and there is nothing left to discuss.

I also think you misinterpreted or overlooked what Regnis said about what the IRS considers a "day" of gambling.

So... except for the days you hit royals, did you have no other winning days in 2012 and 2013 when you reported just a $4,000 win for each year?

[arcimede$]

First of all I never declared less than my W2G wins because I did have wins that did not generate W2Gs and I reported them just as the IRS says I should.

I don't know if you cheated on your taxes, Arc. But it appears strange to me that for two years the ONLY wins you reported were the wins from the royals that generated W2Gs. According to the tax documents this means you had no other winning days in those years. Just tell us you had no other winning days in those years and your only winning days came from those royals and there is nothing left to discuss.

I also think you misinterpreted or overlooked what Regnis said about what the IRS considers a "day" of gambling.

So... except for the days you hit royals, did you have no other winning days in 2012 and 2013 when you reported just a $4,000 win for each year?

No Alan, it doesn't mean I had no other days with wins. It means I chose to use a method of reporting that the vast majority of people use and that eliminates the biggest chance of being audited. In some years this results in less money being reported and in other years it means more money is reported. It really doesn't affect the taxes all that much because I compute the Sch. A amount to show my actual results for the year. How many times do I need to repeat this before you catch on?

Once again, the IRS statement is not part of the written regulation. It is internal to the IRS. While they have documented it is their interpretation, they don't actually follow it as far as I can tell. Otherwise they should be going after millions of people. It is not a law. Get it?

[Alan Mendelson]

How many times do I need to repeat this before you catch on?

I don't catch on.

But what I got is that you don't report all of your winning days.

Edited to add:

And then we have Rob who deducts groceries and dinners and parties as part of his costs for being a professional video poker player.

Okay. I'll go back to work now.

[jbjb]

You're "supposed to" report ALL winnings (not just W2-Gs) and deduct ALL losses. Also keep detailed records of time, casino, game played, machine #, table #, etc. I'm certain very very few people, AP's, pros, or any other gambler does it exactly this way.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're "supposed to" report ALL winnings (not just W2-Gs) and deduct ALL losses. Also keep detailed records of time, casino, game played, machine #, table #, etc. I'm certain very very few people, AP's, pros, or any other gambler does it exactly this way.

I don't keep those detailed records, but I do combine my wins and losses for EACH DAY and by stapling together marker receipts, and ATM receipts, along with win reports, I have a daily record of each day of play. Then it is a simple matter to add them up for a grand total. I also can break out the amounts shown on W2Gs. Thats what the IRS wants and thats what they get.

As I mentioned Ive been audited twice. Once it was a TCMP audit and they didnt even look at the gambling. The second time it was an audit for my website company. Two auditors sat in my accountant's office for two days and asked for evrything including the personal returns of me and my partner and that was the year I had $1.29-million in W2Gs and they didn't even bother looking at the gambling info. By the way, BOTH audits resulted in NO changes.