Has any American online poker player gotten in trouble for not paying taxes?

I created a poll on another website on how much percent of american actually pay taxes on online winnings and most people voted less than 20 percent which is definitely correct. I should have changed the wording to online poker pros that win since people said that poll is a bit ambigious since it would include recreational players as well that make say just $2000 a year.


However, how many cases have there been that you actually heard of where an online player gotten into trouble for not paying taxes? I don't think i ever read of any case. The only ones i could think about in terms of just poker is Michael Mizrachi but he is a live player and a big name and also wins tournaments so that information is sent to the government.


But has anyone heard of anyone you know where they got in trouble for not paying taxes on online winnings? If a guy is winning $100,000 a year and making it for a few years, i am positive there are people like that where they just don't pay any taxes right. Would i be correct?


But the thing is, when has someone actually someone like this been caught or gotten in trouble because i don't recall any stories about these things when checking this through poker forums. I think anyone that makes say 2-3k probably would never get caught but what about those guys that are making at least 5 digits and has no other source of income?

I will think you Will not see much posts to this.
With a post like this, i am thinking undercover IRS AG

I think anyone making a $100,000/year steady income on poker knows to pay their taxes.

I know of people who have paid and been audited, so you can bet you'll have an audit coming if anyone notices that your outbox outpaces your inbox.

Pay your taxes. Lot less painful in the long run. Unless you like prison sex. Then I guess you get to profit 2x.

i dont pay taxes, cause im cool. come get me feds

Is 'allowance' a taxable income?

Did anyone respond to your poll on the other website? Who would consider naming names? Also, I'm curious as to why you're curious about it? (just sayin').
Oh, & I'm not claiming my $14 from Fantasy Freerolls because it's locked up in my FTP acc't. (& I never got the hats) & I'm a losing player. I only know losing players.

I'm surprised the US government haven't started auditing 10 year olds for not paying taxes on their allowance... I mean, they have already shut down some 7-year old's lemonade stand and threatened a $500 fine for not having a license to run the lemonade stand.

http://matrixusa.org/mblog/blogs/blo...lemonade-stand

Fun sure, but if you actually read the content, it wasn't about taxation, it was about being approved to serve food while in a marketplace, which implies that it was more about a liability issue for the owner of the place, or the sponsoring party. I'd stop a 7 year old girl from selling lemonade at a fair too if everyone else had paid a fee for a booth and I'd be liable if the kid got a bunch of people sick or something.

It is a hint that your souce might lack validity when it goes on at length about "The Beast."

Easy search gives this. http://www.taxresolutioninstitute.co...in-back-taxes/

I think OP is referring to 'online player'

Nah I dunno any personally nor have I heard of any, but am curious to see if anyone else does.

i plead the 5th. but im broke and poor,lol.

Sorry in advance for this derail:

The source has quotes from the original article found at oregonlive.com, which is a legitimate news source. The Matrix sounds like an anarchist type anti government site, but your idea that the source is invalid is not quite correct, as the link to the original article is also given,

A kid selling lemonade for .50 and need in a 120$ license is ludicrous. It IS, however, a sign of how "far" we have come .

There needs to be a line between "the good of the public" and simply taking it to a ridiculous level. It was a small grass roots neighborhood affair. Lemonade stands are part of Americas youth and have been for years. This is ridiculous.

But, as I said, we have come a long way, baby..........

There is a nuanced difference between lacking in validity and being invalid. I would say that a site that is portrayed as nutter ranting is certainly subject to a need to consider the source. We already have conflict as Mortis says 500 you say 120.

I don't really care enough to further the research, but the point is that the kid was acting as a vendor at an organized event, not a lemonade stand in mom and dad's front yard, where mom and dad get the liability if the child somehow screws up the lemonade making process by thinking the anthrax at home was sugar for the lemonade or some other, and probably more likely, accident.

wat??

And the $500 was a possible fine for not having a $120 temporary restaurant license. The lemonade would have been EXACTLY the same. No controls were being done on quality, just bureaucratic fees,,,,,,,,,,
It was an art fair, a neighborhood event. I did read the article I am commenting on. It was a freaking 7 year old girl with a lemonade stand.......

But, hey, whatever.

If you payed attention to what fletchdad said, he said the LICENSE for the lemonade stand would have been $120.. I said the FINE for not having that license would have been $500. There is no "conflict" there.

And since for some reason there question about invalidity of my article, here are some other articles:

Oregon Live:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...eprieve_m.html

CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6748628.shtml

It doesn't matter anyway, this year, they allowed the kids to reopen their lemonade stand, as long as it was 100 feet away from where they originally had the stand.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/15...Stand-500-Fine

And yes, it's pretty dumb to ask a 7 year old to get a temp restaurant license for selling 50 cent lemonade, no matter where she is selling it.

Anthrax was obvious hyperbole. The point being 1) liability or fair play issues, and 2) in any case state health board actions could not possibly be further disconnected from the topic of federal taxes. So, if you'd paid attention to what you said, it wouldn't have been said.

But the beast probably made you do it.

LMAO. Context is everything.

I wasnt talking about taxes, I was talking about...... well, read the figgin post, I cant do anything but repeat and If you dont get it there, that wont help anyway..........

I DID mention in my first response that I was making a de-rail, so kinda hinting I aint staying on the subject of taxes... just a hint there...........

I thought that paraphrasing the wording and referencing The Beast would make it clear that the latter portion of the comment was directed at Mortis who directly conflated the "US Government" with the kids case. Seriously though. Unreasonable conversation is unreasonable.

"shrugs"

whatever................