As discussed in the article, implemented into the current framework, it makes a big difference to both the casino and higher denom players who are likely to trigger such paperwork frequently.
Given a relatively safe presumption that there are relatively few gamblers who come away with net winnings from the casinos each year, the real object would seem to be to inflict additional inappropriate taxation on those who don't file a Sched A; for whom a 1099 DOES change their tax liability, irrespective of offsetting losses.
However, if the intention is to implement the reduced threshold into the new reporting framework proposed at the same time (reporting daily net casino wins rather than individual jackpots), then the lower threshold is more palatable and sensible (even though it still hurts non-Sched A filers).
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <mike@...> wrote :
Doesn't make a whole lot of difference except to the folks who have to
prepare the paperwork... they just end up with a lot more work. Whether
a player gets a 1099 or not, it doesn't change the tax liability.
However, as a freelancer, if I do work for a business and they pay me
more than $600, they have to send me a 1099.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
