|
|
|
|
#1
04-28-07, 08:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Honestly though, would it really be so bad for the IRS to get involved? I would think (okay, maybe I'm giving them too much credit here) that if they became involved then there should at least be some
|
|
#2
04-28-07, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The only thing good that might happen is it might force the IRS to alter their gambling reporting requirements. It wouldn't be feasible to send players a W2G for each winning session, so it might compel them to scrap the Pub. 529 rule against reporting net winnings.
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind." Old Norse adage |
|
#3
04-28-07, 06:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ugh... I read the bill on the flight up to NYC this morning, the opt-out clause for the States scares the crap out of me b/c I could see the current administration in Florida opting out (which would be much worse for us than we have it now... as in say good-bye to any internet poker). C'mon Barney, regulation of the internet falls under interstate commerce, use the Commerce Clause and tell the States to pound sand.
__________________
GO GREEN!!! GO WHITE!!! |
|
#4
04-28-07, 08:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This was one of the biggest concerns I had when I looked it over. I was hoping that I was making a big deal in my head about nothing though, so I decided to pretend I didn't notice that part and still be thrilled about the bill.
If you think about it though, I wonder what states like Nevada are going to do? Is it more beneficial for them to not allow it and give more business to the B&M casinos, or is it better for them to allow people to gamble (from Nevada) on sites like MGM.com? I have to think the latter, but then again, people in our government are stupid. As for Florida... man, I just don't know. Will the states get any cut of their players' action? If so, I have to think they are going to be behind this... but if not, uh oh. |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
