Reminder: Your Super Bowl Gambling Winnings Are Taxable

Posted on by Caleb Newquist

So it's the Monday after the Super Bowl and most of you are suffering from some kind of hangover. Whether it was caused by food, booze or you're simply wallowing in a lack of a Peyton Manning comeback, this day should really be a national holiday (even non-football fans can agree on that notion). Melancholy, indigestion and cocktail flues aside, the other certainty that comes with the SB is gambling. And we're not talking friendly-poker-game gambling, we're talking recklessly wagering on every single aspect of the biggest spectacle in sports gambling. Two of the most creative wagers we've seen so far was the betting on rating for the Focus on the Family (featuring Tim Tebow and Mamma Tebow!) ad and the betting the spread between Kim Kardashian's measurements and Reggie Bush's rushing and receiving production. Both of which are completely ridiculous, yet sheer genius. Regardless of where you put your money yesterday (we took the overs on Archie Manning appearances and lost), there are plenty of big winners from yesterday's game. And now that we have a government who is feverishly trying to close a deficit gap, the question remains: will the IRS more aggressively pursue taxpayers for their unreported gambling winnings? If you're a degenerate loser than this obviously doesn't apply to you but if you're lucky enough to find some extra scratch in your pocket, you're legally obligated to report that income next year. Our government is looking for solutions anywhere possible, so it's entirely possible that you could find yourself on the wrong end of an IRS-issued shotgun if you're leaving your winnings off next year's 1040. Look, it's not that crazy and the pols need all the ideas they can get. You've been warned.

Related Posts

Drug Testing at Public Accounting Firms Redux

From the mailbag:

Hi Caleb, I have a question about accounting firms in the Mid-West and whether or not drug testing is done pre-employment or on a random basis. I have searched the internet as well as Going Concern and have come up with a 50/50 mix of yes and no. It’s a tough question to find an answer to, and I can’t exactly ask around if you know what I mean. Seems like an appropriate question for Going Concern right?

Thanks,

Worried Man

It is an appropriate question, my fretful friend. Unfortunately, it is one that doesn’t have a definitive answer. Back in my House of Klynveld days in New York I worked on-site at a large investment bank that perilously close an amazing ‘shroom burger. This particular client required a drug test for all on-site contractors. KPMG did not require a drug test and I do not recall if employees were subjected to random testing.

As the headline suggests, we’ve covered this topic before, around this time last year. To my knowledge, no other Big 4 firms require a drug test as a condition of employment but clients are on a case-by-case basis. My suspicion would be that the second tier (i.e. GT, BDO, McG) would not require a test for condition of employment but anything’s possible.

Regionals are probably more of a crapshoot. Generally, it seems rare that a service-oriented business would subject anyone to drug testing since there isn’t any heavy machinery or children (aside from man-babies) around. In fact, we’ve all been privy to those co-workers who seem to be capital market servant rockstars when they’re unusually FOCUSED. Similarly, those that choose to fire up AK-47 after a rough day rather than pop Adderrall in the loo aren’t causing any harm.

My opinion is this – drug testing isn’t necessary for anyone until it starts affecting other people. Of course the policies of these firms are seemingly fluid, so if you’ve been subjected to a test randomly or just to walk in the door, let us know in the comments.