 |
April 07, 2014, 10:48:57 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2014, 11:01:25 AM by jubalix |
|
Consider:
If a person plays a gambling/slot machine, and eventually cashes out their winnings (if any) at what point could you call the electronic data in the machine yours either by assignment by the owner or lien or other relevant legal fiction and then when you convert to cash what is the form of transfer?
It would seem the particular state of that machine attributable to the gamblers input, money, time and [effort?] fits the property description of the IRS guideline. On the other hand you could argue they are generating a form of property sui generis. I don't think much turns on point either way as property could arguably be said to arise.
Eg. You pay for use of the machine and become the effective owner of the data/state of the machine, but that is not currency, it would appear to be a type of property according to the IRS. You then convert to cash or lose your cash for this property. If lost then it becomes perhaps tax deductible[sure the property is destroyed at the end of the game but that does not matter for this case.].
The upshot being it seems arguable that the IRS guidance has just captured a lot of the gambling market.
If I was a casino I would be potentially worried about the IRS position for making winning not as attractive, as property transfer is captured. However losses may be able to be used to offset other capital gains.
Also on that, note where the Slot machines are all linked up and some sort of wining jackpot occurs, this would seem to fall within the money transmitter guidance.
The Casio/Gambling lobby are going to have to weigh in on this in a big way or face huge changes to their industry via taxation and licensing requirements.
Unexpected help from and unexpected quarter.
USE:
[If Fincen or IRS officers use this information or any other commercial or governmental organization, the cost of presentation of information is 0.001 BTC per reproduction payable to 1MM3gGbW497y7Jb4Kk12ehZ7YDBSXEPdKe]
|
