Elaine5715

Is the free San Juan Trolley operating now?

Because sharing isn't permitted

Use A PVP. They can see more room availability but you can usually book 3 into a 4 person room.

Which Hyatt Place? There is no charge for the one at Dania Pointe to/from the FLL airport.

Sure, you can. You are just paying the same amount.

Won't hold in an audit so you would be responsible for taxes, fees, interest, penalties and attorney fees. Like must be applied to like.

The ruling is in the above post.

So you understand there is no incentive for a server to return to you for a second drink if there isn't a little something extra for them?

Gambling losses are red flags

You have never worked in a tipped position if you think that is the same.

It is a myth since people believe it is a law.

Even if you had one drink per day, the full amount of the package gratuity goes into the tip pool and your actual server gets the same as everything other server onboard. If you charge drinks, that 18% goes to the servers who served you. Big difference.

Fun Fact-Many audits are triggered by unhappy relatives.

Were you audited?

You missed the point of the ruling which establishes sessions. If I am playing Dancing Drum and lose $500 and change machines, my session is over. That a "session". If I move to Bufffffaallllooooo and win $2000, get paid and go home. That's a session. Under the IRS session, my Buffalo win cannot be offset by my Drum loss. My accountant who is retired IRS said they disallowed every gambling loss during audits because only the pros could manage the documentation. The IRS's job is to collect taxes https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2009/dec/20092454.html The actual ruling... The Tax Court held in a memorandum decision released Monday that taxpayers who were casual gamblers recognized wins or losses when they redeemed their tokens and that they could not net their wins and losses across the year ( Shollenberger , TC Memo 2009-306). In this decision, the court accepted the IRS’ methodology for determining wagering gains and losses, which the Office of Chief Counsel put forth in a legal memorandum in 2008 (AM 2008-011). The taxpayers in the case were a married couple who gambled occasionally at a casino in the small town of Charles Town, W.Va. On March 29, 2005, the husband hit a $2,000 jackpot at a dollar slot machine. The couple continued gambling and lost $400 from the jackpot; they left the casino that day with $1,600 in winnings. They did not report any gambling income on their tax return for 2005, and the IRS issued a deficiency notice for $2,000 in unreported gambling winnings. IRC § 165(d) states that “losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions” but does not provide a technical definition of the terms “gains” and “losses.” As AM 2008-011 explains, the term “transactions” in section 165(d) could mean every single play in a game of chance or every wager made. That interpretation would require a taxpayer to calculate the gain or loss on every transaction separately and treat every play or wager as a taxable event and also to trace and recompute the basis through all transactions to calculate the result of each play or wager. Because that method would be “unduly burdensome,” the IRS legal memo allows a casual gambler to recognize a wagering gain or loss at the time he or she redeems tokens. At trial, the IRS conceded that under that method, the taxpayers should have reported $1,100 in gambling winnings rather than the $2,000 in the deficiency notice. According to the court, the lesser amount would be calculated as follows: $2,000 in jackpot winnings minus $500 in wagering money originally brought into the casino by the taxpayers minus the $400 lost by the taxpayers after the jackpot that day. The taxpayers argued that they should be allowed to offset their gambling winnings with $2,264 of other gambling losses that they claimed to have incurred in 2005. Because section 165(d) uses the term “transactions,” the court held that the taxpayers could not net their gains and losses throughout the year. Instead, the court accepted the IRS’ treatment of transactions as occurring when the gambler cashes in his or her tokens at the end of play and held the taxpayers to have $1,100 of unreported gross income for the year. According to the court, to allow the taxpayers to net gains and losses throughout the year would defeat the purpose of IRC § 63, under which losses of casual gamblers are allowable only as itemized deductions.