Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States, 633 F. Supp. 912 (D. Nev. 1986), [1] was a federal tax refund case, decided in 1986, regarding the U.S. federal income tax treatment of the gambling income of a professional gambler. Because of this case, gambling winnings in the United States can in certain cases be treated as business income for federal income tax purposes.
In the United States, gambling wins are taxable.. The Internal Revenue Code contains a specific provision regulating income-tax deductions of gambling losses. Under Section 165(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, losses from “wagering transactions” may be deducted to the extent of gains from gambling activities. [1]
A Qualified Employee Discount is defined in Section 132(c) as any employee discount with respect to qualified property or services to the extent the discount does not exceed (a) the gross profit percentage of the price at which the property is being offered by the employer to customers, in the case of property, or (b) 20% of the price offered for services by the employer to customers, in the ...
Medical expenses that qualify for a tax deduction include a wide range of costs related to your care, from professional services to necessary medical supplies. Here are some examples of deductible ...
Tax Talk launches its 25th year with Ken Milani and Rick Klee answering reader's questions regarding changes to the 2023 federal income taxes.
The catch is that you can only deduct the expenses that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. You probably won't get over that threshold unless your income was very low and/or your medical ...
This facilitated amendments to 2011 tax returns to claim a casualty tax deduction. [4] Gambling losses, but only to the extent of gambling income (For example, a person who wins $1,000 in various gambling activities during the tax year and loses $800 in other gambling activities can deduct the $800 in losses, resulting in net gambling income of ...
Zarin realized no income from the settlement for two reasons. [6] First, the Federal Income Tax Code provisions covering discharge of debt were inapplicable since the situation failed to meet the definitional requirements of section 108(d)(1). [1] Second, the settlement of Zarin's gambling debts constituted a "contested liability." [1]