Archive for the ‘Gambling’ Category

New Jersey Tries Hail Mary on Sports Betting; Will IRS Intercept?

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

Yesterday, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey announced that New Jersey would not prosecute any casino or race track that offered sports betting. This is in spite of a federal court ruling that New Jersey’s sports betting law was unconstitutional. My suspicion is that the federal courts will not look favorably on this, and Governor Christie’s actions will be for naught. Indeed, the attorney crAAKer posted on his blog that this is unlikely to succeed.

But let’s assume that somehow the courts allow this. There’s an issue that will put New Jersey at an extreme disadvantage to Nevada’s legalized sports betting: taxes. Specifically, the Excise Tax on Wagering.

Yes, there are a whole bunch of federal excise taxes. And there’s an IRS publication dedicated just to them. One day you might need to know about the tax on arrow shafts (I’m not making this up). But I digress….

The excise tax on wagering is summarized as follows:

IRC 4401(a)(1) imposes a 0.25 percent tax on the amount of any wager authorized under the law of the state in which accepted.

IRC 4401(a)(2) imposes a 2 percent tax on the amount of any wager not described in IRC 4401(a)(2) (i.e., those not authorized by state law).

This doesn’t apply to all betting in the US; it applies to:

IRC 4404 provides that the tax applies to wagers:

• Accepted in the United States, or
• Placed by a person who is in the United States with a U.S. citizen or resident, or in a wagering pool conducted by a U.S. citizen or resident.

As noted in an IRS analysis on this tax, this tax applies just to sports betting (and wagering that involves a sports bet). An interesting issue is whether this tax applies to fantasy sports, such as daily fantasy sports. I suspect it does, but that’s another issue for another day.

So let’s say you place a bet at the Bellagio sportsbook, betting $100 that the Chicago Bears will beat the San Francisco 49ers. Out of the Bellagio’s “juice”–your bet will typically cost you $110 or $120, with the house (Bellagio) keeping that extra money–Bellagio must pay the 0.25% wagering tax. On a bet of $100, that’s $0.25. The Bellagio remits the tax using Form 730.

Now let’s consider if the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic City were to accept the same bet. Again, the federal excise tax clearly applies. However, the tax rate will be the 2% rate rather than the 0.25% rate because New Jersey has not legalized sports betting. Indeed, Governor Christie vetoed such legislation earlier this year. While New Jersey would argue that the previously passed Sports Wagering Act allows for sports betting, federal courts have ruled that it could not be put into effect.

New Jersey argues that federal law sort of allows any state to conduct sports betting. From crAAker’s analysis:

New Jersey seeks to avoid the licensing problem by asserting that the licensing provisions can be severed from the statute. Severability is a common law doctrine which permits a court to invalidate one section of a statute while leaving the remainder in force. In this case, the statute contains an explicit legislative endorsement of severability (Section 5:12A-2(g)), which expresses the legislature’s intent to have a court attempt to enforce the statute in the event the statute was found to violate PASPA and creates a legal presumption in favor of severability.

Since New Jersey has not authorized sports betting–the only law that was passed by New Jersey was not allowed to be put into effect by the federal courts–the higher 2% rate applies. That means that the Borgata would owe $2 to the IRS rather than the $0.25 that Bellagio owes on a $100 sports bet.

A fundamental principle of economics is that all government fees and taxes are passed on to the consumer. The additional $1.75 that a New Jersey sportsbook would have to pay would be passed on to the New Jersey sports bettor. That will make betting more expensive in New Jersey than Nevada. Even if somehow the courts were to allow sports betting in New Jersey, it will be at a higher price to the consumer than in Nevada.

I suspect the courts are going to throw buckets of cold water on the idea of legal sports betting in New Jersey. However, even if they don’t the IRS would make it a bad bet.

The Hom Decision and the Past (2008 – 2012)

Sunday, August 17th, 2014

Back in June, a federal district court ruled in United States v. Hom that foreign online gambling accounts are reportable for FBAR purposes. An obvious question is what does this mean for prior years.

First, these are just my thoughts. I am not giving advice here on what any individual should or should not do. You need to consult with your own tax professional and possibly an attorney knowledgeable in FBAR issues.

There are three different foreign account reporting requirements for Americans:
1. The boxes on Schedule B of Form 1040;
2. The FBAR; and
3. Form 8938.

Each of these has a different statute of limitations. Form 8938 has only been in existence for two years, so it only applies for 2012 and 2013. The statute of limitations on tax returns is generally three years (though there are exceptions), so the boxes on Schedule B apply only to 2011 – 2013. The statute of limitations on the FBAR is six years; 2007 and earlier years are beyond the statute date. Finally, online gambling accounts were reportable for 2008 and 2009 (even before the Hom decision), so the years we’re concerned with for the FBAR are 2010-2013.

There are also different financial thresholds for these reports. On Schedule B, any foreign financial account must be reported. For the FBAR, the requirement kicks in at an aggregate balance of $10,000. Form 8938 must be filed if you are in the US and have $50,000 aggregate on December 31st or $75,000 aggregate on any other day of the year. If you are filing Married Filing Jointly (MFJ), the balance amounts double for Form 8938. If you are outside of the US, the limits are $200,000 aggregate on December 31st or $300,000 on any other day of the year (again, the balance limits double if you file MFJ).

Because I am a licensed tax professional, the only advice I can give is to comply with the law.

But Russ, you ask, what is the law? The IRS told us back in 2011 we didn’t have to report online gambling accounts; now a judge says we do. What’s right?

Unfortunately, no one knows. We’re left to make guesses. Oh yes, it’s a well known principle that the IRS is not bound by the answers they give. This makes no sense to me (or most tax professionals) but this, too, is the law.

So let’s look at some scenarios:

1. An individual has online gambling accounts with more than $100,000 in them since before 2008. This individual also has not filed tax returns claiming the income from one or more of his online gambling accounts. He also maintains foreign bank accounts. Anyone in this situation should speak to a tax attorney familiar with FBAR issues immediately. This individual has major compliance issues and is definitely a potential target of criminal prosecution. Usually, if you go first to the IRS before they find you, criminal prosecution is unlikely.

2. An individual began online gambling in 2012, but just in the Nevada and New Jersey legal sites. She has filed her tax returns noting her income (including the gambling income). There are no FBAR or other foreign account issues. The current regulated online gambling sites in Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey are not foreign financial accounts.

3. An individual began online gambling in 2012 with non-US-regulated sites. His aggregate balance has never reached $10,000. The question here is whether this individual should amend his 2012 returns to note the foreign financial accounts. (Question 7a of Schedule B asks, “At any time during 2012, did you have a financial interest in or signature over a financial account…located in a foreign country?”) Amending your return for this would not change your tax but would extend the statute of limitations on the return. Because I am a licensed tax professional, the only advice I can give is to amend your return. Of course, given that this issue is not settled law, and there is no specific penalty for answering Question 7a incorrectly, most individuals will not amend their tax returns for this.

4. An individual was playing on Full Tilt Poker from 2008 – 2011 (until “Black Friday”). Since April 15, 2011, he has not played on any of the unregulated sites. This individual filed FBARs for 2008 – 2009 but not for 2010 and 2011. Two weeks ago this individual received through remission the $20,000 balance that he had on Full Tilt Poker. He did include his 2008, 2009, and 2010 Full Tilt winnings on his tax returns. He did not include his 2011 winnings on his 2011 return (but he did not make any withdrawals during 2011, so based on constructive receipt he did not have any reportable 2011 winnings); he plans on including his 2011 winnings on his 2014 tax return (filed in 2015).

Based on the Hom decision, this individual has a foreign financial account for 2010 and 2011. (It’s somewhat unclear whether or not he really has a foreign financial account for 2011. The “balances” at Full Tilt in 2011 were effectively not real; the Department of Justice charged that Full Tilt Poker was a “massive Ponzi scheme.”) That said, I would conclude based on the Hom decision that this individual had FBAR reportable foreign financial accounts.

The problem here is that late-filed FBARs can be subject to penalties. An individual late filing because it was unclear whether the account should be reported would almost certainly not be subject to the “willful” penalties; however, the non-willful penalties can be up to $10,000 per account. Each individual will have to weigh reporting these or not.

If the taxpayer amends his 2011 return (to note that he has a foreign financial account and that he filed an FBAR), this extends the statute of limitations. The 2010 return is beyond the statute date and would not need to be amended to note the FBAR.


There are numerous other scenarios I could write; most will feature some version of the above scenarios. There are some conclusions we can draw:

1. Even with the Hom decision it is possible that other courts will rule differently. This was a decision of a US District Court. An appellate court or another US District Court could rule differently; it is not clear that online gambling accounts are really the same as banks.

2. However, prudence requires that for 2013 returns (and forward) that until FINCEN announces that they do not want online gambling accounts reported on the FBAR, and until the IRS (or Department of the Treasury) announces that they do not want online gambling accounts reported on Form 8938 and the check boxes on Schedule B of Form 1040, taxpayers should report these accounts.

3. When an individual has reportable online gambling accounts for the past, he or she will have to weigh reporting versus the consequences of reporting. Everyone’s situation is different so there is no one size fits all advice here.

4. That said, individuals with unreported foreign financial accounts (on an FBAR) and who haven’t filed tax returns for those years should run, not walk, to a tax attorney who specialized in FBAR matters.

The best advice I can give is that if you are impacted by this, speak to your tax professional. Everyone’s situation is different. If you let your tax professional know how you are impacted by the Hom decision, your tax professional should be able to give you good guidance.

Is a “Dealer Add-On” a Tip or a House Fee?

Sunday, August 10th, 2014

Poker dealers are paid a low hourly wage; they make most of their money from gratuities (tips) from players. Those tips are, of course, taxable. In a poker tournament, dealers also receive tips. Some come from the prize pool while some come from the players themselves when they win or place high in the tournament. Some tournaments offer players a “Dealer Add-On.” The Dealer Add-On costs players a small fee–say, $5 to $50. In return, the player receives an additional amount of tournament chips.

Clearly, a dealer who receives a portion of that add-on must report it as income; all income is taxable unless exempted by Congress, and such Dealer Add-Ons haven’t been exempted. However, there’s a dispute in Florida as to whether the Dealer Add-On is considered income to the casino.

The Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (which regulates non-Indian casinos in the state) now says the money is income to the casino, and tax must be paid to the state on it. Until this July, Florida said that Dealer Add-Ons were not income to the casino. The Isle Casino in Pompano Beach, Florida has sued the state charging the rule is, “an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.”

Given that Dealer Add-Ons are small compared to the other income that a casino brings in, this dispute will have a minor impact on the casinos. However, it could cause an increase in the fees that a casino charges for running tournaments; that could negatively impact poker tournaments.

Quite a Gamble to Workout There

Sunday, August 10th, 2014

Runnemede, New Jersey is a small suburb of Philadelphia. Located in Camden County, the borough would be happy to let you know about its summer recreation program. The borough got some other publicity at what was once a Curves health club.

Curves is a health club for women. The Runnemede, New Jersey club closed some time ago. There are lots of things you can do with an empty health club. I wouldn’t recommend what was done here: An illegal poker club.

Gambling in the United States is regulated. To open a legal poker room, you need to have various government approvals. Thomas Rand of Williamstown, New Jersey and Ryan Dion of Blackwood, New Jersey ignored that small step. There’s also the other minor difficulty that the only legal live gambling in New Jersey is in Atlantic City, 52 miles from Runnemede.

The club, which ran no-limit Texas Hold’em games three times a week, was shut down by state police in March. New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman stated, “These defendants operated an old-school gambling club, complete with cash cage, poker tables, and a wide-screen TV for patrons to watch the sports on which they gambled.” The club ran for eight years according to news reports, and included a link to an online sportsbetting website.

Mr. Rand and Mr. Dion pleaded guilty to gambling charges; they’ll be sentenced in early October.

Online Gambling Addresses (Updated for 2014)

Sunday, June 22nd, 2014

With the United States v. Hom decision, we must again file an FBAR for foreign online gambling sites. An FBAR (Form 114) is required if your aggregate balance exceeds $10,000 at any time during the year.

There’s a problem, though. Most of these entities don’t broadcast their addresses. Some individuals sent email inquiries to one of these gambling sites and received politely worded responses (or not so politely worded) that said that it’s none of your business.

Well, not fully completing the Form 114 can subject you to a substantial penalty. I’ve been compiling a list of the addresses of the online gambling sites. It’s presented below.

Note: This list is presented for informational purposes only. It is believed accurate as of June 22, 2014. However, I do not take responsibility for your use of this list or for the accuracy of any of the addresses presented on the list.

The list is in the cut text below.

If anyone has additions to the list feel free to email them to me.

Just File the FBAR

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014

Several of our clients have asked, “The decision on poker accounts being ‘banks’ is nonsensical. Do I really have to file an FBAR for those accounts?”

I am in general agreement with the individuals questioning the ruling. Banks and financial institutions generally offer investments, credit cards, loans, checking accounts, securities, and similar products. An online gambling site does take client’s money–but solely so that the client can gamble.

The United States has, for various laws, lumped casinos in with banks. For example, casinos fall under the same currency transaction reporting rules as banks. If you take $20,000 into your local casino and deposit it at the casino cage, a Currency Transaction Report is supposed to be issued. Casinos have to issue Suspicious Activity Reports.

If you go back to 2009, the FBAR was required for online gambling accounts. (That was the advice given to us from the IRS FBAR group.) In 2011, when new regulations came into play, the IRS no longer said that. The new regulations appeared to make an online gambling site not a reportable foreign financial account.

However, a federal judge disagreed.

Section 5312(a)(2) lists 26 different types of entities that may qualify as a “financial institution.” Based on the breadth of the definition, our court of appeals has held that “the term ‘financial institution’ is to be given a broad definition.” United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986). The government claims that FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker are all financial institutions because they function as “commercial bank[s].” Section 5312(a)(2)(B). The Fourth Circuit in Clines found that “[b]y holding funds for third parties and disbursing them at their direction, [the organization at issue] functioned as a bank [under Section 5314].” Clines, 958 F.2d at 582 (emphasis added).

It may be that this decision will be reversed. It’s possible another court would come to a very different conclusion. But the laws on the FBAR are draconian, including willful penalties that are a minimum $100,000 fine. My thinking is simple: I’d rather be safe than sorry. Thus, my strong advice is, “Just file the FBAR.”


We sent out a special newsletter to our clients on this issue. Here’s what we wrote:

The FBAR is due June 30th and there are no extensions. There are significant penalties (including possible imprisonment) for FBAR mistakes.

The general rule on whether you have to file an FBAR is if you have $10,000 or more aggregate in one or more foreign financial accounts at any time during the year you must file an FBAR. If your aggregate balance remained under $10,000, you will not have an FBAR filing requirement.

Even if you don’t have an FBAR filing requirement you must still disclose your foreign financial accounts on your tax return. At the bottom of Schedule B are a few questions which include, “At any time during 2013, did you have a financial interest in or signature authority over a financial account, (such as a bank account, securities account, or brokerage account) located in a foreign country?” This question must be answered yes if you have a non-US based online gambling account.

There are two choices in filing an FBAR. We can file it for you (we would need you to complete and return Form 114a; if you need us to send you this form, let either Aaron or me know) or you can file it yourself at the BSA efile system.

Here are answers to some questions relating to this issue:

1. I had $6,000 maximum in my PokerStars account. I cashed it out and moved that same $6,000 into my foreign bank account. Do I need to file an FBAR? No. You never reached $10,000 aggregate in your foreign financial accounts.

2. I already filed my FBAR for 2013 but I have online gambling accounts that must be reported. What do I do? You will need to file an amended FBAR.

3. My tax return has already been filed; I did not note any foreign financial accounts on Schedule B. Will I need to amend that return? Yes.

4. Do online gambling accounts count for Form 8938 on the tax return? (Form 8938 is similar to the FBAR and reports certain foreign financial accounts.) Yes

5. Do I need to go back for prior years and file amended FBARs and tax returns? This is unclear at the present time, but the answer is probably yes. The statute of limitations on FBARs is six years from the due date, so 2009-2013 are open (2008 will be beyond the statute of limitations on July 1, 2014). However, gambling accounts were considered foreign financial accounts for 2009, so this impacts solely 2010-2012 for FBAR purposes. For tax returns, only 2011 and 2012 are open (assuming timely filing). Note also that the first year for Form 8938 was 2012.

I and other practitioners have asked the IRS and FINCEN for more information regarding this. I do expect to obtain a response regarding this within a couple of weeks. I will be updating this issue on my tax blog (http://taxabletalk.com) when I have more information.

6. My only online gambling accounts are in Nevada and New Jersey with the regulated sites in those states. Do I need to file an FBAR? No. Those accounts are not considered foreign financial accounts.

7. My online gambling accounts are with current US-facing sites; their legality is questionable. Must I report my accounts on an FBAR? Yes, as long as you have $10,000 or more aggregate in one or more such accounts.

8. Can I access my PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker accounts while in the United States? Yes, you can. PokerStars sent us instructions on how to do this:

Your deposit, cashout, transfer and playing transaction history is now available for request directly from the PokerStars software. To request this information from the PokerStars Lobby screen, select:
‘Requests’ -> ‘Playing History Audit’
From the pop-up window that appears, you can select a date range to request the specific information required. You will also need to select a password for the file. You may choose any password you wish; however, we do not recommend using the same password as for your PokerStars account. If you wish to view your FPP/VPP information, please ensure the relevant box is checked.
Finally, you will need to select the output format. The options available are Excel (97-2003), HTML and a text file. Then click on OK to submit the request. You will be prompted to enter your PokerStars password to confirm the request. An email with further instructions will be sent to your registered email address.
If the file provided will not open, it indicates you have an older compression program that does not support the encryption used on the file. To resolve this and open the file, you will need to update your compression program or download a new compression program. We recommend using WinZip 11 (or newer) or 7-zip which will allow you to open the file. You can access these programs from the following links:
WinZip – http://www.winzip.com/prod_down.htm (Choose ‘Download’ > ‘Get WinZip Free’)
7-zip – http://www.7-zip.org/


I will be posting a list of online gambling addresses next week.

More on the Hom Decision

Monday, June 9th, 2014

Jack Townsend of the Federal Tax Crimes Blog has a post on United States v. Hom today. In his post, he notes that Mr. Hom represented himself. Indeed, the court is still looking for a pro bono counsel to represent Mr. Hom:

Defendant John Hom is not indigent and therefore does not qualify for appointment of pro bono counsel with the Court’s federal pro bono project. This tax action, however, involves novel questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations. Accordingly, the Court seeks counsel to volunteer to represent defendant on a pro bono basis for the remainder of this action. Pro bono counsel will be allowed to re-brief the pending summary judgment motion, which is currently held under submission. In addition, a case management schedule has not yet been set.

If any counsel is willing to volunteer to represent defendant, please email the undersigned judge’s courtroom deputy, Dawn Toland, at whacrd@cand.uscourts.gov by JUNE 12, 2014.

While Mr. Townsend notes that the Court applied the duck test, I remain unconvinced that the Court got this right. It did if you had to decide that all three foreign accounts in this case were foreign financial accounts or none were; however, if the Court could look at each individually the Court likely would have come to a different conclusion.

In any case, as of today we’re stuck with this decision. And no, I haven’t heard from the FBAR group at the IRS yet.

Back to the Past: Poker Sites and FBARs. Poker Sites Are Again Reportable Foreign Financial Accounts

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

Back in the past, I asked the FBAR group at the IRS whether or not poker sites needed to be reported. In January 2009, they told me they did have to be reported. In prior years, the FBAR group said they did not have to. Thus, FBARs (then, Form TD F 90-22.1) were sent to FINCEN with poker accounts.

Come early 2011, FINCEN issued new regulations. These regulations made it clear at the time that poker accounts would no longer be considered reportable foreign financial accounts. However, yesterday a judge disagreed.

In United States v. Hom defendant Hom was charged with violating the Bank Secrecy Act for not reporting three accounts at FirePay, PokerStars, and Party Poker.

In the case, the Court decided:

Section 5312(a)(2) lists 26 different types of entities that may qualify as a “financial institution.” Based on the breadth of the definition, our court of appeals has held that “the term ‘financial institution’ is to be given a broad definition.” United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986). The government claims that FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker are all financial institutions because they function as “commercial bank[s].” Section 5312(a)(2)(B). The Fourth Circuit in Clines found that “[b]y holding funds for third parties and disbursing them at their direction, [the organization at issue] functioned as a bank [under Section 5314].” Clines, 958 F.2d at 582 (emphasis added).

The biggest problem that I see for the defendant is that he had an account at FirePay. FirePay was a United Kingdom-based third-party payment processor similar to Skrill (Moneybookers) and Neteller. FirePay was absolutely a foreign financial account: It issued credit cards, debit cards, and had functions that almost anyone would say are akin to what banks offer.

In this case, the defendant argued that all of his accounts were not foreign financial institutions. He did not separate out the poker sites from the third-party payment processor in his arguments. He was almost certainly doomed on the FirePay account. Still, the Court ruled that PokerStars and Party Poker were banks. What does this mean for individuals who have poker accounts?

1. As of now, plan on reporting these accounts for both FBAR (Form 114) and Form 8938 purposes. When in doubt, report is a good rule of thumb.

2. Do poker accounts need to be reported? As of now, yes.

3. Do prior year FBARs need to be filed and/or amended for poker accounts? This is unclear, but the answer is probably so. The statute of limitations on FBARs is six years from the due date. Given the FBAR is due on June 30th of the year following, the statute is about to run out on 2008. (In any case, for calendar years 2008 and 2009 poker sites were considered foreign financial accounts.) However, I would think that 2010 and 2011 FBARs would need to be filed or amended.

4. Do tax returns need to be amended to note the presence of foreign financial accounts if you have an FBAR filing requirement for poker accounts? Almost certainly they do for any tax years open (2011 – 2013).

5. Also note that tax returns may need to be amended just by the presence of a foreign financial account. The IRS now asks on Schedule B whether you have a foreign financial account. Anyone with money at PokerStars in 2011 would need to answer yes.

I have sent questions to the IRS on this issue. (The FBAR group at the IRS is one of the few groups that accepts emails.) I have asked whether they want such accounts to be reported; whether back FBARs/amended FBARs should be filed; and whether tax returns should be amended. I will both post on the response I receive and update this post when I do receive the response.


A few other things to note about the decision. This is not a precedential decision; it is a decision of a District Court Judge. A Court of Appeals has not ruled on this. The defendant lumped an account that was clearly a foreign financial account with accounts that might not be. The Court looked at them in toto rather than individually. I suspect that if Mr. Hom appeals this decision, he will also argue that the poker accounts should be looked at differently than the third-party payment processor.

I am troubled by the Department of Justice looking at poker accounts as a foreign financial account. Still, there are some other issues regarding this decision that are unclear. FBAR charges are rarely brought in isolation. I don’t know what caused these charges to be brought.

In the end, this is not a good decision for poker players or tax accountants who service the poker world. Lots more useless paper will end up being generated as a result of this decision. (Well, electrons as FBARs now must be electronically filed.) Still, the old adage of better safe than sorry holds. As of today, reporting poker sites as foreign financial accounts is back on.

Staking and the 2014 WSOP: Nothing Has Changed

Saturday, May 24th, 2014

The poker world is about to descend on Las Vegas. Over the next several weeks, many players who enter the myriad of poker tournaments from expensive tournaments at the World Series of Poker to more affordable tournaments at Binion’s and the Venetian will be “staked.” Instead of the player putting up 100% of his or her buy-in, he or she will have backers who have put up part of the entry fees. Since some tournaments will cost upwards of $10,000 (there are $25,000, $50,000 and a $1 million buy-in this summer), staking is commonplace.

There are rules you must follow when you’re staked. You must make sure proper IRS paperwork gets to your backers. A lot depends on where you will be playing. If you’re at the Venetian playing in their Deep Stack Extravaganza, you’ll find a cooperative cage ready and willing to accept Form 5754. (Form 5754 is used when you have backers). The same is true for Binion’s. However, if you are playing at a Caesars property–and this includes the Rio Hotel & Casino, where the World Series of Poker takes place–you are on your own; Caesars will issue one W-2G (or Form 1042-S) to the winner. This is a decidedly player-unfriendly attitude; it also violates IRS rules. What does this mean for the player?

Back in 2007 I wrote about this situation. It has now been seven years and nothing has changed. If you’re backed, you have to send out 1099-MISC’s or 1042-S’s for your backers:

  1. If you’re backed by an American get a signed and completed Form W-9 from him before you pay him. If someone refuses to complete a Form W-9, you are required to withhold.
  2. The issuance of 1099s is based on you backer profiting $600 or more for the entire year.  So realize that if you have backers who profit $600 or more, the onus is on you for sending out Form 1099-MISC’s. (The 1099s are not sent until year-end.)
  3. If you’re backed by a non-American, the situation is far more complex.  You will need to obtain a Form W-8BEN; make sure it’s the new version that was released this year.  The form must be complete in order for you not to withhold.  It must have an ITIN, a Tax Treaty Article noted, with reasoning why there is no withholding, and it must be signed and dated.  If you don’t have the complete paperwork, you must withhold even if your backer is from a Tax Treaty friendly (for gambling) country.  If you don’t, you could be held liable for the tax plus penalties and interest!  For specific scenarios, see this article I wrote in 2011.

As I’ve said before, eventually Caesars will be called on the carpet for their policy. Until they are the onus is on you to obey the law. When the casino ignores the rules, you effectively become the casino for your backers.

Yes, Online Poker Players Must Pay Taxes

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

The Las Vegas Review Journal has a short article on the fact that online poker players must pay taxes. The article notes that winning players must pay taxes; of course, both winners and losers are supposed to include their winning sessions on their tax returns. There is one minor error in the article: Freeroll winnings of $600 or more should be reported on a Form 1099-MISC rather than a Form W-2G.

Both Brad Polizzano and I are quoted in the article. One point that I made with David Ferrara (the writer of the article) is that proposed legislation legalizing and regulating online poker in other states (than Nevada) explicitly requires reporting wins and losses to state tax agencies.