More UIGEA busts

[2Tone]

Reuters reports that seven people and four companies have been indicted on charges of “conspiring to violate” the US ban on online gambling. Reuters says that according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ,) that those charged include a Canadian sports-betting firm, and a company based in the British Virgin Islands. Reuters says: “The 34-count indictment handed down in Salt Lake City, Utah, said the defendants ran a scheme to circumvent a US law passed last year that prohibits US banks and credit card companies from processing Internet bets.” It adds that the defendants facilitated the payment of over $150m to online gambling websites. They include payment processing firm CurrencC, Gateway Technologies, Hill Financial Services, and BetUS.

[eejit101]

UIGEA - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

UIGEA - Unethical Internet Gaming Euthanasia Act

[Kurn]

Every time I read something like this I think of how all the big profile drug busts have crippled the drug cartels. Oh, wait. They haven't, have they?

Here's 2 things that will happen if the US government legalizes and regulates internet gambling.

1) The IRS will know EXEACTLY how much you make gambling online, and if you think that's not a bad thing, google "Alternative Minimum Tax."

2) I'll wager right now that one condition of legalization will be that the sites will be required to block datamining software. Buh-bye PAHUD.

Just my periodic "be careful what you wish for" post.

[Talking Poker]

1. Many (ok, a few) of us report what we actually earn anyway.
2. You really think politicians are going to be smart enough to address this? No way.

[Kurn]

Then poker players are more compliant than waiters and bartenders.

I have never in my life met a waiter or Bartender that reports $0.01 more than the 8% of sales his/her employer reports to the IRS as tip income.

As for #2, they won't know about it unless someone clues them in. If clued in, its a virtual lock they'll do it. Remember, they want to "protect" us.

On the other hand, as long as sports betting is involved in legalization, Frank's bill doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, so the discussion is purely academic.

To my mind, the UIGEA vs Frank's bill is a Hobson's choice. I've come around to the PPA stance of a carve-out for poker because it maintains the status quo of offshore online poker.

Now I admit to a couple personal reasons for feeling this way.

1) I live (and now work) a comfortable distance from a B&M poker room (2 next spring when Mohegan reintroduces poker).

2) The tax laws regarding gambling income are flat out punitive, especially when you factor in the specter of the AMT. And a change to a Democratic administration in '08, while it may help water down the UIGEA, will absolutely not mitigate the tax implications. We may well win the UIGEA battle but ultimately lose the war.

This issue brings me perilously close to breaking my vow not to discuss politics on this forum, but my libertarian voice requires I remind all involved that this country originally arose from a tax revolt, and in that respect (as well as during football season ) I am a true patriot.