Withholding Tax

Greetings all,

I'm trying to get my ducks in order for the upcoming tax year and I'm a bit confused about losses. (Don't worry I have many)

Example: bring 1000$ to casino and win a 2000$ jackpot. 600$ is held back and I'm given 1400$.

If I lose it all that day, are my losses 2400$ (my own + 1400 I won) OR just the 1000$ ?

Or am I looking at this all wrong?
Any help would be appreciated.
Cheers

Comments

  • In Canada you cannot claim losses, but don't need to claim winnings either.

    There's a thread on here with a recent case, where this was confirmed by a judge.

    (Unless you are talking about winnings in the USA)
  • Yes USA casino winnings. Thanjs
  • I would think since the casino is issuing you a tax form which indicates gross winnings of $2,000, with net taxes of $600, realistically you won $2,000 at that point in time. So if you left the casino at that point in time, you had winnings of $2k that would be taxable if you were a US resident (or if you filed a US tax return).

    If you now have lost the $1,400 remaining plus your original $1,000, I would think your net loss for US tax purposes would be ($400) = $2,000 + (-$2,400). As a result, you would be entitled to get back your full $600 of tax withheld on the $2k jackpot. Although how do you prove that you lost the $2,400? That is likely the tough part.
  • they tax you on something other than poker? how does that work? How do they know what you "buy in" for?
  • Video poker and slots.
    Track most if it with players card, otherwise your supposed to keep records of dates and amounts etc.

    I have all the info, I just can't make sense of it although I think Jah has it right.
  • Even if you only won $2k total, you likely could get back the $600 by filing a US return. I would think that there would be a minimum amount of income required before you would be taxable in the US.
  • If I lose it all that day, are my losses 2400$ (my own + 1400 I won) OR just the 1000$ ?
    You can legally claim the $600 taxes back since you have offsetting gamboooling losses. I believe your win/loss statement from Aria (or whatever US casino) will show the $2,400 in losses.
    Or am I looking at this all wrong?
    Yes, you probably won't listen like my other degenerate friends, but you should be looking at the poker room instead of the one-armed bandits. :(
  • please understand this isn't to be taken as tax advice to be relied upon when dealing with either the CRA or IRS.

    For the CRA, your poker winnings/losses are only taxable if this is a primary or regular source of income. If you do not earn a significant portion of your income/losses from poker then you needn't even report this to the CRA. If you were a net winner, this could lead to tax payable.

    if you try this with the CRA, be careful as you may need to report on poker income for the rest of your playing days....

    The US though is a different story. You should have been given a 1042S with the income of $2000 and foreign withholding tax of 600.00. If you weren't then get it from the casino. If they take the tax they have to give you the form as they will be filing an electronic record of their withholding on you at the end of the year and will have given that 600 to the IRS in the week that they earned it. They need to balance all this stuff to the freakin penny.

    Since you have traceable losses you can file a return with the IRS and offset your income with those losses and reclaim the tax. Even if you didn't you could file a return but you wouldn't get anything back but what would be the point. Since you had a buy in value and other poker related losses you can claim those against the income and get the tax paid back. You may or may not require an ITIN to perform this filing (international tax id number) which is essentially the foreign version of their Social Security Number. you may want to consult an accountant that is also a CPA to do this as the American forms while very well documented with user guides are in a different language if you aren't a CPA yourself. It really is quite weird and I've dealt with reporting 1042, 1099's for years ( a 1099 is very much like a T5 for americans but with different versions for dividends, interest and other)

    So, if you are good at reading the american forms, do as Blondfish says and get the gain/loss report and file with the IRS and/or just eat the loss and don't report to the CRA your income or losses if you don't make a significant income from pokie and gumby.

    again, not tax advice. just rambling steam of consciousness sort of stuff that may or may not make sense.
  • So I can submit a handwritten note indicating my losses and its cool?
  • SuitedPair wrote: »

    For the CRA, your poker winnings/losses are only taxable if this is a primary or regular source of income. If you do not earn a significant portion of your income/losses from poker then you needn't even report this to the CRA. If you were a net winner, this could lead to tax payable.
    i don't agree, or don't think so. poker is not taxable in canada period. you can pay taxes and the cra will accept them. but regardless of any circumstances, its not legal taxable. The reason I say this I delved into Canadian law in this regard and it seems there is clear intent by intelligent peoples to make it this way. Our courts have very well defined system and poker is especially meant to be not taxable. If the courts greyed this area I believe it would unwind the entire system. I've seen/heard of cases that go against what I suggest but they get elevated and become precedent cases that support what I am pointing at.

    You can't prove profitability in courts, so you can't show poker is an income. I do believe this is ideal, and I suspect it to remain this way in Canada at least in the long term.
  • Startles wrote: »
    You can't prove profitability in courts, so you can't show poker is an income. I do believe this is ideal, and I suspect it to remain this way in Canada at least in the long term.
    Of course you can, every legitimate business in Canada has prove profitability or lack thereof for every taxation period. And it certainly has been tested and proved by the courts. Not that I like it but I guess profitability is better than the alternative.. Makes the world go around..
  • compuease wrote: »
    Of course you can, every legitimate business in Canada has prove profitability or lack thereof for every taxation period. And it certainly has been tested and proved by the courts. Not that I like it but I guess profitability is better than the alternative.. Makes the world go around..
    I don't know if we are using "profitability" in the same way. Playing poker isn't considered a 'business'. Even running a staking group wouldn't be considered such (since you are gambling on gamblers). Won't even matter if you have "books" etc.

    By "profitability" I mean that there is no accepted formula or proof in a court that a poker player is "profitable". Doesn't matter if its 5 years of profits or whatever. I play 180 man games mostly and the variance requires more games than one can play in a year to prove profitability (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=41917200&postcount=1). Nearly all games are set up like this (think about 1k entry mtts etc the variance is higher).

    I can look up some citations. But the case I read was that a guy voluntarily paid taxes on poker winnings because he quite his regular business to play poker full time. He later realized that he shouldn't have to pay these taxes and asked the CRA for his money back, which they refused. He lost the provincial case, but escalated it to the supreme court. The supreme courts judgement was very firm, citing 7 reasons why this man would be given his money back, and poker is not to be a taxable income in Canada.

    That was fairly recent, I'll try and post it with quotes, I'd certainly be willing to read anything relevant that is more recent as well!
  • Here's the case I guess its from 2013: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/62785/1/document.do

    I don't know our legal system super well, I think its a supreme court judge ripping a provincial judge a new one tho:
    Notwithstanding these caveats, upon reviewing the record as a whole, I have to conclude that the Applicant has made his case. The Minister’s exercise of her discretion under subsection 152(4.2) of the Act in this case lacks intelligibility and justification and, in my view, falls outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law

    Here are the points, I numerated them, and cut some parts out from the link above. It might "seem" there is still some gray area, but this player wasn't the average player, they were likely quite organized, these points have an underlying tone that a poker player will never meet these tax playing requirements. That's how I understand the laws were written and what they mean to reflect, and as I understand it this Judge sees that, and meant to lay the debate to rest firmly:
    1) The Minister in this case relied upon the fact of winning and, in effect, conducted the kind of retrospective assessment warned against by Justice Bowman in Leblanc, above, as part of the assessment of reasonable expectation of profit;

    2) The Minister concludes that the Applicant had a “system” but does not provide any meaningful explanation of what this system might be. It looks as though the Applicant’s simply playing online poker on his computer on an intense and regular basis over an extended period of time is equated with a system

    3)I see no analogy between a skilful pool player who systematically applied his skills to make money from inebriated opponents and anything the Applicant did in this case where, essentially, his winnings were dependent upon chance, even though he had studied, practised and improved his skills in a way that most amateur poker players do.

    4)Everyone who competes in online poker wants to win and will attempt to narrow the odds in their favour in any way they can. But this does not mean they have devised a system if they do win; chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose, as it did on the facts of this case

    5) The method of payment used was no indicator of a “system” or a reasonable expectation of profits. Everyone who wants to pay has to set up some kind of payment system, so this cannot be an indication of running a business. Paypal accounts are used in a variety of contexts where payment is required online

    6)The Applicant’s cutting back on other work and income while he won at poker is also no indicator of a system or running a business with a reasonable expectation of profit

    7) The use of winnings to finance a mortgage is no indication of running a business. Winnings can be used in a constructive way.

    8) There is no indication that the monitors or other equipment which the Applicant used to gamble in this case were anything special or that the Applicant had made capital investments for the purpose of running a business or earning a profit

    9)The Applicant’s record keeping was minimal and entirely consistent with the need to prove the source of funds for tax purposes. They were not business records in any meaningful way, and did not even correlate to CRA’s own criteria


    here are other points of concern but, generally speaking, I think this is enough to conclude that there was nothing in the Applicant’s case to set him apart from the usual enthusiastic and ever-hopeful poker player engaged in a personal endeavour
  • There's a thread discussing that case on here somewhere. I think Blondefish was the OP, but not sure about that.
  • Good part about that decision is that poker winnings are not taxable under Canadian Law.

    Bad part about that decision is that poker is deemed a "game of chance" under Canadian Law.

    Variance is STILL a bitch.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Good part about that decision is that poker winnings are not taxable under Canadian Law.

    Bad part about that decision is that poker is deemed a "game of chance" under Canadian Law.

    Variance is STILL a bitch.
    Yes and it was clearly and firmly stated too. However I think both aspects are favorable to Canadians. Being a game of "chance" is mostly directed at the first judge from the higher one, seemingly setting a precedent not to be f-ed with. Players in the States seem to feel this aspect was their downfall, but I think this is where our "legal" and "political" systems deviate from each either. Theirs is pretty convoluted in terms of different state laws etc.

    Another key difference I think is the money that was being raked OUT of the US, was a strong ("international") economic leak for them (at least in the FBI/DOJ's eyes and many lobbyist groups backed by irl Casino's). If the new poker stars resides in Canada, it might in some ways guarantee Canadians are allowed in the pool. Maybe the government can just take a bigger cut from Amaya, and save themselves government site run operating costs and hassle.

    Since stars is the monopoly most Canadian monies rake stays more within the country with no change to regulation. It's probably not insignificant that we have many of the top players in the world too. I do allude to this is my writing on "moral poker" that intelligent governments even if corrupt are very happy to having poker not taxable for the players, and wouldn't want to change that.

    And then there is the economic invisible hand that supposedly fuels and drives all these things as per Adam Smith's writings.
  • http://www.pokerforum.ca/f6/poker-winnings-not-taxable-31876/
    There's a thread discussing that case on here somewhere. I think Blondefish was the OP, but not sure about that.
  • Startles wrote: »
    Yes and it was clearly and firmly stated too. However I think both aspects are favorable to Canadians. Being a game of "chance" is mostly directed at the first judge from the higher one, seemingly setting a precedent not to be f-ed with. Players in the States seem to feel this aspect was their downfall, but I think this is where our "legal" and "political" systems deviate from each either. Theirs is pretty convoluted in terms of different state laws etc.

    Another key difference I think is the money that was being raked OUT of the US, was a strong ("international") economic leak for them (at least in the FBI/DOJ's eyes and many lobbyist groups backed by irl Casino's). If the new poker stars resides in Canada, it might in some ways guarantee Canadians are allowed in the pool. Maybe the government can just take a bigger cut from Amaya, and save themselves government site run operating costs and hassle.

    Since stars is the monopoly most Canadian monies rake stays more within the country with no change to regulation. It's probably not insignificant that we have many of the top players in the world too. I do allude to this is my writing on "moral poker" that intelligent governments even if corrupt are very happy to having poker not taxable for the players, and wouldn't want to change that.

    And then there is the economic invisible hand that supposedly fuels and drives all these things as per Adam Smith's writings.

    But if it remains a "game of chance" then there is NO WAY the government will ever allow private entities into the game, in terms of private card rooms, etc. The only chance the poker players had of getting that particular change was for poker to be deemed a "skill" game. In Canada, that chance is now toast.
  • Milo wrote: »
    But if it remains a "game of chance" then there is NO WAY the government will ever allow private entities into the game, in terms of private card rooms, etc. The only chance the poker players had of getting that particular change was for poker to be deemed a "skill" game. In Canada, that chance is now toast.
    Right! :mad:
    Ok I got this. Our loop hole is the game is skill, but you cannot prove your profitability from results. It's there, but it needs to be turned into a legal argument. Stay tuned >:D

    (don't hold your breath tho, just hang out and do stuff)

    Is it just about the money? If there is no money present but just cards is it legal? This could be done very easy by automatic escrow, where the monies never enter Canada. It would be too cumbersome now, but as "software" develops (or ethererum is released early next year) it might be easier than current methods (withdraw via atm).
  • Well if you want to avoid paying any withholding tax, just get a Gold membership at Bills for $30.
Sign In or Register to comment.