Poker Poker Poker!: [vpFREE] Re: Editing new tax book

Harry Porter wrote:
> > FWIW, Sched C filing is likely a weak alternative by which to avoid
> > the penalty in long form filing to report gambling activity that's
> > inherent for those who otherwise would file short form (most often,
> > non-home owners and those in states w/o income tax).

tralfamidorgooglycrackers wrote:
> Well, from my experience, it hasn't been a "weak" alternative at
> all. As you obliquely point out, for someone already filing long
> form, it's not much trouble at all to tack on a Schedule C. Keep in
> mind that we're talking about itemizing SIGNIFICANT gambling
> wins/losses here; if you gamble enough so that this becomes an
> issue, or if you had a big score this year, you are in all
> likelihood in long form territory anyway.
>
> The big plus is that if you report your gambling activity as income-
> generating, then you can avoid the choppiness that comes from big
> wins and losses: you report NET gambling income. Furthermore, you
> can deduct related expenses: this is not trivial. A third benefit is
> that there is some ability (being reduced all the time, but still..)
> to carry losses forward, which a 1040 filer cannot do at all.
>
> I've filed 1040 long+Sched C for about fourteen years now, and never
> a peep from the tax monster--even with .75 million in W2-G's in one
> year.

For an individual such as yourself, for whom it would appear that vp
play may indeed be your predominant income-related activity and where
you may be able to readily substantiate that it's not merely a
recreational activity, Sched C could be a viable option.

For most who might pick up Jean's book, vp is a recreation, even if
high denom play means they rack up substantial W2-G's. Jean and
Marissa advise re the considerations involved in qualifying as a
professional gambler for tax filing purposes and discuss the factors
to be weighed.

I wrote the quote you cite above ("likely a weak alternative")
immediately after quoting text from your original post -- where you
indicate that a primary motivation for filing Sched C would be to
avoid the potential loss of one's standard deduction were you to
otherwise file a short form in absence of the gaming activity. When
the cited benefit is limited to that alone, I'll still hold that Sched
C is an option that has limited appeal, in most cases. (However, that
is not descriptive of your personal circumstances.)

For those who have an interest in the prospects of filing as a
professional gambler, Jean's/Marissa's book provides good insight. An
internet search will surface other good info. An interesting article
on the topic is:
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/907/essentials/p46.htm

- Harry