Having been hit with numerous questions on the new gambling tax law (which doesn't go into effect until 2026), some thoughts in this thread🧵 1/n
Russell Fox
1,560 posts
Russell Fox
@russcfox
Enrolled Agent (federally licensed tax professional), Poker Player, Writer
- My annual report on how much of the WSOP Main Event final table winnings went to taxes is now up (link in first comment). One player lost over half his winnings to taxes while two will pay $0 in tax.
- Senate version of "Big, Beautiful Bill" is ugly towards gambling, limiting gambling losses for both amateur and professional gamblers. More in my blog (link in comments).
- Replying to @russcfox and @AmericanGamingContinue to nudge your Congressmen (especially if they're in the GOP); if you know casino execs, let them know, too. I'm not doom and gloom; this is a storm cloud that has a good chance of clearing up. 10/10
- In today's "Excellence in Tax Preparation" lesson, we have this excerpt from a filed 2024 partnership tax return; yes, a professional prepared it (and signed it)! #TaxTwitter
- Replying to @russcfox and @AmericanGamingThe negative ramifications for this industry are obvious, and they have high-powered lobbyists. And several casino operators are known supporters of the current Administration. I strongly suspect they will be working to reverse this. 4/n
- Replying to @russcfoxSecond, I think that the gambling industry (casinos, sports betting operators, horse racing, @AmericanGaming, etc.) were unaware of this until it was pointed out this week. No one in the industry likes this. 3/n
- Replying to @russcfox and @AmericanGamingYes, if this law stays for 2026 high-stakes gambling will be hurt. But so will the average gambler who "gets lucky." Vegas was built on the dream, and if that dream is removed (or drastically lessened) by a bad law Vegas will be hurt. 9/10
- I would hope that @AmericanGaming takes notice of the ugliness in the Senate version of the "Big, Beautiful Bill." It's anything but that for gambling.Senate version of "Big, Beautiful Bill" is ugly towards gambling, limiting gambling losses for both amateur and professional gamblers. More in my blog (link in comments).
- Replying to @billsperos @DataBasedBets and 3 othersI'd love if this were the case, but the **plain language** of the proposed law says that it replaces IRC Sect 165(d); courts have ruled that Sect 165(d) applies to both amateur and professional gamblers.
- Replying to @BartHansonIf you don't like this (and I don't), and if you have a GOP Congressman, let them know. (You can find your House representative at house.gov/representative…) Be respectful in your message, and, yes, they are looked at.
- Replying to @russcfox and @AmericanGamingAnd this is likely to be (at least, here in Nevada) bipartisan; I can't see any of our legislators, Republican or Democrat, liking this measure. Published reports suggest another reconciliation bill will occur this Fall. 5/n
- Replying to @russcfox and @AmericanGamingThat, or a "technical corrections" bill (quite common with tax law--technical corrections bills are generally bipartisan), could be used as a vehicle to rescind this law and revert back to current IRC 165(d). 6/n
- Replying to @russcfoxFirst, this has NO impact on 2025 tax returns. Current law holds for this tax year. 2/n