actually B7, start dumping profits into off shores if you are in that mode, if not buy Roths, and any other tax sheltered investment you can find....why don't you try buying some real estate with cash (i.e. foreclosure...sell by owner people in Florida...lots of manufactured homes for sale after this hurricane (hurricanes don't blow they suck!!!) sorry FSU Grad and had to throw that in. Lots of ways to live large and still pay your little 100K tax nutr.
First off, declaring yourself a PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER is not a wise move IMO.brewers7 said:
You will have to pay extra taxes, you can deduct expenses but you will be setting yourself up 700% more for an eventual audit, etc.
You are RETIRED for all practical purposes and making extra money getting lucky gambling as far as the IRS is concerned!
Keep a diary, report your wins and losses...............if you got the money through NETELLER say it was gambling through online poker, video poker, and slots which your diary will show. There is no need for sportsbetting of any kind to be discussed.
Fish your killing me...I got an intern scanning 1040 and the others now this is going to be a great thread for JD.....IMO its like driving from Motor city to Toronto....Yes Sir I made $20K gambling in Hamtramick....whats the penalty? BTW here's my DL but I really live in America
Fishhead:
Thanx...Believe me, I will NOT be calling myself a "Professional Gambler"...
But just curious:
What's the difference between winning money at slots, video poker, or online poker from an offshore book compared to sports gambling winnings??...
Why is the former ok and the latter so frowned upon??...
And I do play online poker and my wife plays slots and some video poker online...I personally think it's funny how THAT is ok but the sports gambling is NOT...
"Retired" at 38?...Not a bad idea...
Thanx for the input, it is very much appreciated...
Thanx...Believe me, I will NOT be calling myself a "Professional Gambler"...
But just curious:
What's the difference between winning money at slots, video poker, or online poker from an offshore book compared to sports gambling winnings??...
Why is the former ok and the latter so frowned upon??...
And I do play online poker and my wife plays slots and some video poker online...I personally think it's funny how THAT is ok but the sports gambling is NOT...
"Retired" at 38?...Not a bad idea...
Thanx for the input, it is very much appreciated...
From My PDA.....Legal code later
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=720 border=0><TBODY><TR><TH vAlign=bottom align=left width=540 height=30></TH><TD vAlign=bottom align=left width=180 bgColor=#ffcc00 height=30></TD></TR><TR><TH vAlign=center align=middle width=540 background=../images/bnr_blk.gif height=45><!-- #BeginEditable "Banner" -->Wire Act
<!-- #EndEditable --></TH><TD vAlign=top align=left width=180 bgColor=#ffcc00 height=45>
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=top_nav vAlign=top align=middle width=540 height=30>| Gambling Law US | State Laws | State Summary | Articles | Federal Laws |</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left width=180 bgColor=#ffcc00 height=30></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- #EndEditable --></TH><TD vAlign=top align=left width=180 bgColor=#ffcc00 height=45>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=720 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left><!-- #BeginEditable "Body" -->Federal Wire Wager Act
By: Jeffrey Rodefer
Extracted from: Internet Gambling in Nevada: Overview of Federal Law Affecting Assembly Bill 466,
Courtesy of Liebert Publishing, Gambling Law Review
In 1961, Congress enacted the Wire Act [57]as a part of series of antiracketeering laws. The Wire Act complements other federal bookmaking statutes, such as the Travel Act (interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprises, including gambling), the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act (requires a predicate state law violation).
The Wire Act was intended to assist the states, territories and possessions of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, in enforcing their respective laws on gambling and bookmaking and to suppress organized gambling activities.[58] Subsection (a) of the Wire Act, a criminal provision, provides:
Some courts have construed the second element concerning transmission to mean just the "sending" of information and not the receipt thereof.[63] Other courts have interpreted the term "transmission" more broadly to include both parties using a wire communication facility. [64]
The term "wire communication facility" is defined, for purposes of transmitting as set forth in the third element above, as:
Subsection (b) of the Wire Act sets forth exceptions, also known as a "safe harbor" clause and provides:
Subsection (c) simply provides that nothing contained in the provisions of the Wire Act shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any state laws.[70] Finally, subsection (d) dictates when a telephone company or other common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, must terminate service when that service is being used to transmit or receive gambling information in violation of law.[71]
The language of the Wire Act clearly prohibits the use of the Internet for transmission of sports bets or wagers or information assisting in the placement of such bets or wagers,[72] unless transmission falls within one of the two exceptions noted above. The statute, however, does not expressly discuss its possible application to other forms of gambling. As a result, differing interpretations have arisen over the construction of the phrase "any sporting event or contest," and over whether the 40-year old Wire Act prohibits Internet gambling.
The interpretation of this language turns upon the determination of whether "sporting" is an adjective intended to modify both "event" and "contest." [73] Neither section 1084 nor the definitional section 1081 defines the term "sporting event or contest." A narrow construction would seem to suggest that the phrase is limited to sports-related activities. [74] There is support for this argument in the language of the statute, in the legislative history and in case law.
Statutory language: Section 1081 defines a "gambling establishment" as "any common gaming or gambling establishment operated for the purpose of gaming or gambling, including accepting, recording, or registering bets, or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing a game of chance, for money or other thing of value." [75] However, the term "gambling establishment" does not appear in section 1084.
A narrow construction approach is further bolstered by looking at the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, [76] which was enacted as part of the same anti-organized crime legislation as the Wire Act. Section 1953 separately references bookmaking, wagering pools with respect to a sporting event, numbers, policy, bolita or similar games. [77] By contrast, section 1084 only references bets or wagers on "sporting events or contests." Similarly, the Illegal Gambling Business Act, [78] defines "gambling" to include "but is not limited to poolselling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein."[79]
Legislative history: The legislative history of the Wire Act seems to provide support for a narrow construction. The title of the legislation is "Sporting Events- Transmission of Bets, Wagers, and Related Information." [80] The House of Representatives Report on Senate Bill 1656, dated August 17, 1961, states that the bill is in response "modern bookmaking." [81] In the "Sectional Analysis" of the report, the terms "sporting event or contest" and "sporting event" seemed to be interchangeable. [82] Included in the report is a letter from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated April 6, 1961, which only refers to wagering on sporting events. [83] Moreover, the Congressional debates on this legislation concerned the bill's impact on "horse racing and other sporting events."[84]
Congress' use of these different terms reflect its knowledge of the various forms of gambling, including traditional casino games or games of chance and specifically limited the Wire Act's application to sporting events or related contests.[85] This is evident from the statement of United States Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona as he introduced the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. [86] Specifically, Senator Kyl stated that the bill was necessary, because "t dispels any ambiguity by making it clear that all betting, including sports betting, is illegal.
Currently, nonsports betting is interpreted as legal" [87] under the Wire Act. [88]
Case law: most notably the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, clearly supports this conclusion. In In re MasterCard Int'l, et al., a class action against several banks and credit card companies alleged unlawful interaction with Internet casinos in violation of RICO. [89] The various defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [90] The court held that the plain language of the Wire Act was limited to gambling on a sporting event or related contest. [91] The court reasoned that:
The case is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
If on the other hand the term "contest" is to be viewed more broadly to encompass traditional casino games or games of chance, then on-line gaming, as some have argued, [93] will be prohibited by the Wire Act.
Finally, there is a secondary debate ongoing about whether the definition of "wire communication facility" in section 1081 applies to the Internet. [94] Some have pointed to section 1084(d) and its reference to "common carriers" within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to support the argument that "wire communication facility" is limited to telephone companies. [95] "Thus, absent a determination that it violates federal, state, or local law, use of the Internet for gambling would not appear to implicate directly any of the FCC's common carrier rules." [96] 96 Others simply argue that Congress chose to broadly define "wire communication facility" to cover a wide range of wire communication modes that were known and unknown in 1961, like the Internet. [97]
"Despite the divergent views . . ., the official position as expressed by the Justice Department [during the Clinton Administration] and several state attorneys general is to treat the Wire Act as applying broadly and covering all forms of Internet gaming." [98]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
By: Jeffrey Rodefer
Extracted from: Internet Gambling in Nevada: Overview of Federal Law Affecting Assembly Bill 466,
Courtesy of Liebert Publishing, Gambling Law Review
In 1961, Congress enacted the Wire Act [57]as a part of series of antiracketeering laws. The Wire Act complements other federal bookmaking statutes, such as the Travel Act (interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprises, including gambling), the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act (requires a predicate state law violation).
The Wire Act was intended to assist the states, territories and possessions of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, in enforcing their respective laws on gambling and bookmaking and to suppress organized gambling activities.[58] Subsection (a) of the Wire Act, a criminal provision, provides:
Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[59]
In order to prove a prima facie case, the government must establish that:- The person was "engaged in the business of betting or wagering"
- (compared with a casual bettor);
- The person transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce:
- bets or wagers,
- information assisting in the placement of bets or wagers, or
- a communication that entitled the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of a bet or wager;
- The person used a " wire communication facility;" and
- The person knowingly used a wire communication facility to engage in one of the three prohibited forms of transmissions.
Some courts have construed the second element concerning transmission to mean just the "sending" of information and not the receipt thereof.[63] Other courts have interpreted the term "transmission" more broadly to include both parties using a wire communication facility. [64]
The term "wire communication facility" is defined, for purposes of transmitting as set forth in the third element above, as:
[A]ny and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.[65]
The fourth element is that the person acted "knowingly." This does not mean that he or she knew they were violating the statute, but rather, the individual knowingly used an interstate wire communication facility to engage in one of the three forms of prohibited transmissions listed above.[66] Subsection (b) of the Wire Act sets forth exceptions, also known as a "safe harbor" clause and provides:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information [(1)] for the use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or [(2)] for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on the sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal.[67] "
The first exemption was designed to permit 'bona fide news reporting of sporting events or contests.'"[68] The second exemption "was created for the discrete purpose of permitting the transmission of information relating to betting on particular sports where such betting was legal in both the state from which the information was sent and the state in which it was received."[69] Subsection (c) simply provides that nothing contained in the provisions of the Wire Act shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any state laws.[70] Finally, subsection (d) dictates when a telephone company or other common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, must terminate service when that service is being used to transmit or receive gambling information in violation of law.[71]
The language of the Wire Act clearly prohibits the use of the Internet for transmission of sports bets or wagers or information assisting in the placement of such bets or wagers,[72] unless transmission falls within one of the two exceptions noted above. The statute, however, does not expressly discuss its possible application to other forms of gambling. As a result, differing interpretations have arisen over the construction of the phrase "any sporting event or contest," and over whether the 40-year old Wire Act prohibits Internet gambling.
The interpretation of this language turns upon the determination of whether "sporting" is an adjective intended to modify both "event" and "contest." [73] Neither section 1084 nor the definitional section 1081 defines the term "sporting event or contest." A narrow construction would seem to suggest that the phrase is limited to sports-related activities. [74] There is support for this argument in the language of the statute, in the legislative history and in case law.
Statutory language: Section 1081 defines a "gambling establishment" as "any common gaming or gambling establishment operated for the purpose of gaming or gambling, including accepting, recording, or registering bets, or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing a game of chance, for money or other thing of value." [75] However, the term "gambling establishment" does not appear in section 1084.
A narrow construction approach is further bolstered by looking at the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act, [76] which was enacted as part of the same anti-organized crime legislation as the Wire Act. Section 1953 separately references bookmaking, wagering pools with respect to a sporting event, numbers, policy, bolita or similar games. [77] By contrast, section 1084 only references bets or wagers on "sporting events or contests." Similarly, the Illegal Gambling Business Act, [78] defines "gambling" to include "but is not limited to poolselling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein."[79]
Legislative history: The legislative history of the Wire Act seems to provide support for a narrow construction. The title of the legislation is "Sporting Events- Transmission of Bets, Wagers, and Related Information." [80] The House of Representatives Report on Senate Bill 1656, dated August 17, 1961, states that the bill is in response "modern bookmaking." [81] In the "Sectional Analysis" of the report, the terms "sporting event or contest" and "sporting event" seemed to be interchangeable. [82] Included in the report is a letter from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated April 6, 1961, which only refers to wagering on sporting events. [83] Moreover, the Congressional debates on this legislation concerned the bill's impact on "horse racing and other sporting events."[84]
Congress' use of these different terms reflect its knowledge of the various forms of gambling, including traditional casino games or games of chance and specifically limited the Wire Act's application to sporting events or related contests.[85] This is evident from the statement of United States Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona as he introduced the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. [86] Specifically, Senator Kyl stated that the bill was necessary, because "t dispels any ambiguity by making it clear that all betting, including sports betting, is illegal.
Currently, nonsports betting is interpreted as legal" [87] under the Wire Act. [88]
Case law: most notably the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, clearly supports this conclusion. In In re MasterCard Int'l, et al., a class action against several banks and credit card companies alleged unlawful interaction with Internet casinos in violation of RICO. [89] The various defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [90] The court held that the plain language of the Wire Act was limited to gambling on a sporting event or related contest. [91] The court reasoned that:
[T]he recent legislative history of internet gambling legislation reinforces the Court's determination that internet gambling on a game of chance is not prohibited conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 1084. Recent legislative attempts have sought to amend the Wire Act to encompass "contest of chance. . ." the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999" . . . sought to amend Title 18 to prohibit the use of the internet to place a bet or wager upon a "contest of others, a sporting event, or a game of chance. . . ."[92]
If on the other hand the term "contest" is to be viewed more broadly to encompass traditional casino games or games of chance, then on-line gaming, as some have argued, [93] will be prohibited by the Wire Act.
Finally, there is a secondary debate ongoing about whether the definition of "wire communication facility" in section 1081 applies to the Internet. [94] Some have pointed to section 1084(d) and its reference to "common carriers" within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to support the argument that "wire communication facility" is limited to telephone companies. [95] "Thus, absent a determination that it violates federal, state, or local law, use of the Internet for gambling would not appear to implicate directly any of the FCC's common carrier rules." [96] 96 Others simply argue that Congress chose to broadly define "wire communication facility" to cover a wide range of wire communication modes that were known and unknown in 1961, like the Internet. [97]
"Despite the divergent views . . ., the official position as expressed by the Justice Department [during the Clinton Administration] and several state attorneys general is to treat the Wire Act as applying broadly and covering all forms of Internet gaming." [98]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
.........ACCURATE in their eyes!bigbet1234 said:
HOW IN THE TARNATION WILL THE IRS KNOW ANY BETTER.
Say I record a $200 loss that actually happened at a roulette table in Vegas................I report this in my diary right?
What if I were to the next day put in my DIARY that I lost another say $300 at the same table even though I really didnt............how in the WORLD would the IRS know????
KEEP A DETAILED DIARY OF SOME KIND! THAT IS ALL THE IRS REQUIRES..........BEEN DOING THIS FOR 15+ YEARS!........AND NOT WITH CHUMP CHANGE MIND YOU.
In order to prove a prima facie case, the government must establish that:
THE LAW IS CONCERNED WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS OF BETTING OR WAGERING WHICH MEANS BOOKMAKING!
- The person was "engaged in the business of betting or wagering"
- (compared with a casual bettor);
THE LAW IS CONCERNED WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS OF BETTING OR WAGERING WHICH MEANS BOOKMAKING!
I will throw this out there for what it is worth...
I just talked to my wife about this tonight at dinner...My wife runs the money in our household and it's by mutual agreement...When I decided to do this for a living last December, she emailed the IRS and asked about income garnered from Offshore SportsBooks from gambling and the IRS emailed her back, simply saying that all you have to do is report your wins and losses...
My pc crashed in May, so I no longer have that email, but I may have my wife email the IRS again and perhaps I can post their response in here...
I just talked to my wife about this tonight at dinner...My wife runs the money in our household and it's by mutual agreement...When I decided to do this for a living last December, she emailed the IRS and asked about income garnered from Offshore SportsBooks from gambling and the IRS emailed her back, simply saying that all you have to do is report your wins and losses...
My pc crashed in May, so I no longer have that email, but I may have my wife email the IRS again and perhaps I can post their response in here...
Hey, I am simply too honest for my own good...Which is why my wife is dumbfounded that I love sports betting so much, because it just doesn't seem to fit my persona...I am just trying to keep everything "above board", which may be hard with this new "profession" of mine...
Maybe I misunderstood. So, if you loose a 1K bet on Dallas for instance, you record it as a loss in poker, BJ, or some other form of gambling than sports. But really, whays it matter if you said it was lost on the Dallas spread. Gambling is gambling.
BB
BB
Fishhead said:
May I have the name of the "person" that tells you to declare your offshore winnings? Or Maybe a OSB that is not preparing for regulatory sanctions? Its not that hard dude..I think regulated is a key word for all you guys,,,,,can you even afford to come to the bash? Win the NBA Contest and you can leave your sleeping bag at home.
