win 100k lose 100k and still owe the irs. committee voted to kill it but its still law

pokerslave55

pokerslave55

Well-known member
Messages
261
Reaction score
121
Points
83
somebody tell me im reading this wrong. 90% thing came in january. it applies to everything ive done all year. i report all my winnings and i can only deduct 90% of my losses, and theres no carryforward so the missing 10% is just gone
i tracked my year properly for once. im down on the year. actually down. and if i run the numbers the way the irs is going to run them i owe tax on about eleven grand i never had. committee voted 38 to 5 to get rid of it two weeks ago and congress went home until after the midterms
 
You're not reading it wrong. Here's the mechanism laid out, because a lot of people in here are going to need it.
- It's in the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed July 2025, effective for tax years beginning after 31 December 2025​
- You deduct the lesser of 90% of your losses, or your total winnings​
- Winnings are still reported at 100%​
- No carryforward. A disallowed loss is not banked for next year, it's deleted​

The first return this touches is your 2026 return, which you file in early 2027. Which is why it's September and everybody is only now working out what it means. The revenue estimate was around $1.1 billion over eight years. That's the entire policy rationale anyone has been able to find.
 
before everyone panics, this doesn't touch most people in here
if you take the standard deduction you never deducted gambling losses in the first place. you report your W2Gs and that's it. the 90% cap changes nothing for you because you were already deducting zero
it bites if you itemise, and you itemise if you're pushing real volume. that's a much smaller group than this thread is about to assume
 
that's not a defence of it. its so the guy with forty dollars on the chiefs doesn't spend a week thinking he's been ruined
 
i'm not going to apologise for telling people who aren't affected that they're not affected
half this forum was about to spend a weekend terrified over a rule that doesn't reach them. that's worth thirty seconds
 
it's my income so i'll declare the interest up front. for a professional this isn't a tax change, it's a change to whether the job exists. take a grinder turning over serious volume at a thin edge. the 10% disallowance can exceed the entire annual profit. you don't get taxed on your winnings, you get taxed on your handle

and there is no version of this where you play your way out of it. more volume makes it worse. that's the part that separates it from every other bad tax rule i've dealt with
 
i've had my tracker open since the committee vote and ran every year i have data for against the new rule
2024 would have been fine. 2025 fine. this year is the one that breaks because i had a swingy summer, big wins and big losses in the same months, and its gross numbers that matter not net
thats the part nobody gets until they run it. two players can finish the year at the exact same profit and one owes nothing and the other owes thousands, purely on how choppy the ride was
 
2 reps pushing the fix are both nevada and thats not a coincidence
titus and horsford. horsfords framing is that its about protecting nevada jobs in gaming and tourism, which is a state with a direct stake arguing its own corner and also happens to be correct. AGA are behind it, the big operators are behind it. when the industry and the players want the same thing thats usually because the rule is stupid rather than because anyone's being noble
 
there's over 3million dollars traded on prediction markets on whether this gets repealed. implied probability was sitting around 48% for repeal by april 2027 when i looked, so there is a market, priced by people with money on it, that says this is a coin flip. and the thing being priced is whether gamblers get taxed on phantom income, which is the most 2026 sentence i've ever typed
 
Well here is actual answer to that one, because it is genuinely unsettled. Whether an event contract is a wagering transaction for tax purposes has not been determined, and the courts are currently arguing about whether it is a wager for gambling law purposes.
If it is a wager, then yes, and the 90% cap applies. If it is a capital transaction, different treatment entirely.
I would not want to be the person who has to take a position on that return.
 
Because a committee vote is the first of four things that have to happen.

It cleared Ways and Means 38-5 on 16 September, attached to a 98-page digital asset tax bill. It still needs the full House, then the Senate, then a signature. Congress is out until after the midterms.

And it's riding on a bill that is mostly about crypto taxation. If that package stalls for reasons that have nothing to do with gambling, the gambling fix stalls with it. The provision is a passenger, not the vehicle.
 
CatMatt said:
Because a committee vote is the first of four things that have to happen.

It cleared Ways and Means 38-5 on 16 September, attached to a 98-page digital asset tax bill. It still needs the full House, then the Senate, then a signature. Congress is out until after the midterms.

And it's riding on a bill that is mostly about crypto taxation. If that package stalls for reasons that have nothing to do with gambling, the gambling fix stalls with it. The provision is a passenger, not the vehicle.
Click to expand...
so we're relying on a crypto bill to save us. cool cool cool
 
retroactive part is the only bit of good news in here and its real. language applies to tax years beginning after december 31 2025. so if it passes, this whole year gets treated as if the cap never existed. thats why people arent restructuring everything in a panic. either it passes and 2026 was normal, or it doesnt and 2026 was a disaster. no middle
 
retroactive bit is the first thing that gets traded away and everyone here is treating it as the safe part
it costs revenue they already booked. when this hits the senate and somebody needs a number to come down, "fix it going forward, don't backdate it" is the obvious compromise and it sounds reasonable in a press release
id plan for a 2027 fix and no relief on this year. if im wrong i'll be delighted
 
no middle is not as reassuring as you think it is. im not in a position to absorb the disaster branch. thats the whole thing. people keep explaining the mechanism to me like understanding it helps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top