It seems everyone has a computer,
so use a spread sheet to make a list ;
heading of:
Gaming and month or/and year
DATE; CASINO; TYPE OF GAME; Amount Won; Amount Lost;
{and last but not least} NOTES
Be sure you put these across the top and each session
down as your sessions will be longer.
--- b.glazer@att.
>
> > 5b. Re: Gambling logs
> > Date: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:02 pm ((PST))
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, now here's my problem: Say I put a Benji
> into a machine. Five
> > > plays later, pull a quad but don't cash out.
> Then, I continue playing
> > > and like a stupid, rather than cash out, I play
> it down to zero. Do I
> > > just note the $100 as a loss or do I need to
> record the quad? If so,
> > > do I log $250 as put into the machine or is it a
> wash?
> >
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >
> > A very strict interpretation of the IRS rules
> would have you recording
> > EVERY wager and EVERY result for each hand you
> play, but this is just
> > plain ridiculous. It is much more realistic to
> record results
> > by "session" - although I don't believe the IRS
> provides a definition
> > of "session". If you walk into a casino with $3000
> and leave with
> > $2900, record this as a $100 loss for the session.
> If you walk in with
> > $3000 and leave with $3100, record this as a $100
> win for the session.
> > Just about everyone does it this way. Some people
> take a more liberal
> > approach to what constitutes a "session" and
> record results by "day" or
> > by "trip", which may or may not pass an audit, but
> I get the impression
> > that most people start a new "session" when they
> change casinos.
> >
>
> My gambling buddy who works for the IRS records
> "sessions" as each stretch at a given machine -
> anywhere from 15 min. to hours, depending on how
> long he sits there. For live poker, the session is
> the stretch at a given table - once you get up and
> leave, and later come back the same day and play
> some more, that's a new session. While I'm pretty
> sure that "session" IS, as mentioned, NOT well
> defined by IRS, unless it's one continuous sit-down
> (more likely at poker than VP, although some do
> spend hours at a time at a single VP machine, I
> guess), I would think that counting an entire day as
> a "session" is probably going to be disallowed by
> some auditors as adequate record-keeping.
>
> Let me restate that - when I say "disallowed as
> adequate..."
> sufficient.
>
> He even records the exact machine ID number, usually
> on a plate on the side of the machine, for each
> machine played.
>
> My friend's method has pretty good crediibility as
> acceptable, since compliance with the regs as much
> as reasonably possible is essential to keeping his
> job, and I think they pretty routinely audit IRS
> personnel for just that reason - to make sure they
> are good examples. Personally, I'm just a notch
> less compulsive - I don't record the machine number.
> I'll have, in my log, something like "$1 JoB, 9am -
> 10:30am, +$300", "$0.50 JoB 3Play, 10:40am - Noon,
> -$500", "$1/$2 No limit holdem, 1pm - 8pm, +$400",
> etc. etc., with the date. I just keep it all on 3x5
> cards, file 'em in a box, and send my acct. a
> transcription of the same information. I note when
> a session generates a W2G as well.
>
> Oh, and I have the date and location, of course.
>
> I also get my win-loss statements from the casinos,
> but those are NOT adequate for determination of
> taxes -- but they can serve as support to show your
> own record-keeping is pretty much on track.
>
> Compliance with this record-keeping probably results
> in payment of higher taxes - but that's the case
> when you comply with any of the IRS regs, in my
> opinion. So I offset it with liberal use of
> deductions that I think are appropriate - here, my
> motto is "when in doubt, do". I figure they never
> are going to call me up and say, hey you forgot a
> deduction - and if I'm audited, which I have been
> (not for gambling though), then you can decide if
> it's quicker / easier / cheaper overall to pay what
> they want, or appeal their assessment.
>
> The risk you run with inadquate record-keeping is
> that they'll gather all the data they can, and
> decide on their own what your wins and losses were,
> and assess the tax based on their own data
> collection -- and I'm sure their bias is "find all
> the income we can".
>
> If your records are compulsive enough that they have
> no good reason to audit you based on record-keeping
> deficiencies, then they have little motive to do so
> -- just like most businesses, they are expected to
> have a reasonable return of money on their audits,
> for the time involved.
>
> --BG
>
> ============
>
____________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
