Not true as above in red.
APA sending out 1099 to players?
- Thread starter AcuraHeel
- Start date
Not true as above in red.
A Willie Mays rookie card is just a piece of cardboard with a picture on it. An Omar Moreno rookie card is the same thing, yet the values are vastly different.
The maker of the cue places a retail value on it (X) and charges APA a different amount (Y). APA deducts Y from their taxes and puts X on the 1099 like the law requres. X could be $10 or $10,000,000 and it won't change what APA deducts from their taxes.
First off I think its complete B.S you weren't made aware of it at first. Second, I am curious why before the poker bans in the US they were saying that poker is a game of skill and not luck (which is what gambling is considered) therefor, they only have to file taxes on anything over $5,000 in winnings. I would hope that everybody agrees that pool is by far more a game of skill than luck over poker so why shouldn't we have to only claim it on taxes on winning over 5k?
Again, the 1099 has no effect on the tax deduction APA takes for the cue. They can only deduct their cost, and are required to report the retail value on the 1099.
In fact, NOBODY deducts $350 for the cue. The manufacturer is only allowed to deduct their actual cost, which is always lower than the retail value and may or may not be less than what APA paid (there's some advertising value to them so they may charge APA less than their actual cost).
RBC
Deceased
The APA is just doing what is required of them by law. They don't benefit from this. As a matter of fact, it costs them money. They have to keep up with all the information and report it appropriately. If they fail to do this, they will be responsible for all the taxes that weren't paid plus penalties.
As for notification, I would be willing to bet that the OP was notified. I'd bet that not only was he notified, but that he signed acknowledging that he was notified. He also had to give them his SS number so they could report any earnings over $600.
Technically, we have to claim all income, regardless of where it came from, and even if it's less than $600. If it's a hobby, then we can deduct related expenses up to but not more than the income. If it's a business, then you can deduct a loss, but the IRS can challenge it all if they don't believe that are or were a real business and had a real possibility to make a profit. Basically, if they don't believe you I think they can take it all back. The same thing goes for rounding up all the lottery tickets. If they don't believe you, then they can disallow the deductions.
The whole thing here is that the APA hasn't done anyone wrong by giving out 1099's. They're actually just doing what they're supposed to do.
As for notification, I would be willing to bet that the OP was notified. I'd bet that not only was he notified, but that he signed acknowledging that he was notified. He also had to give them his SS number so they could report any earnings over $600.
Technically, we have to claim all income, regardless of where it came from, and even if it's less than $600. If it's a hobby, then we can deduct related expenses up to but not more than the income. If it's a business, then you can deduct a loss, but the IRS can challenge it all if they don't believe that are or were a real business and had a real possibility to make a profit. Basically, if they don't believe you I think they can take it all back. The same thing goes for rounding up all the lottery tickets. If they don't believe you, then they can disallow the deductions.
The whole thing here is that the APA hasn't done anyone wrong by giving out 1099's. They're actually just doing what they're supposed to do.
Look, either way you PAY ..BCA or APA. The difference is, in the BCA you pay and you go. In the APA, you pay and there's no guarantee you go to Vegas. You have to qualify to go. Which is why there are teams out there who have been playing for more than 17 years who never made it to Vegas. There are some that are both good and fortunate and make it in their first year. But that's not the norm. There's only 1-2 that qualify for regionals or "cities" ..and then there's 2-3 that go to Vegas from cities. The odds are quite low. The process is difficult.
I'm saying it's futile for most who play and play with the hopes and dreams of going to Vegas.
The BCA doesn't care, if you're sanctioned you can go. Pay your own way. What's wrong with that, in the long run - for MOST and I do mean MOST teams it will be less expensive to do it that way. Just go, have a good time. So what if you pay your own way? What do you think? You think the APA pays out of their pockets? You paid for it battling for years in that league. In the APA, the many subsidize and pay for the few to get their "free" trip.
I know of one division where one team in particular made it to Vegas 4 years in a row. Total and complete sandbagger team. Everyone on that team mastered the art of sandbagging in the APA and holding it together. For teams like that, it's a bargain. What are league fees for a year? Compared to what they get in return? That's the ugliness of the APA.
Pay your way like the BCA is superior. Kills even more incentive for sandbagging. More fun that way, anyone can go and play. It doesn't cost more, in fact it's less money.
But for some reason, when people think of paying their way they think of the costs. Yet, they never consider that it costs more to go with the APA. Add up the years, the league fees etcetera. That's NOT free.
I agree with Royce. I don't see how the APA is putting more money in their pockets by filing 1099s. I do see how they stand to lose a lot of money by failing to file them (through taxes and penalties). I had to file 1099s and the equivalent for some foreign players when I ran tournaments large enough that they might attract the attention of the IRS. It's a lot of bother. It's also an expense if you don't do the work yourself.
BTW... Every US tournament promoter and calcutta operator is also required by law to submit 1099s if any prize is $600 or larger for a tournament.
if they do not stand to benefit from inflated figures on the jacket and cue, then why did they send out the 1099s with these inflated figures?
Why not send out true cost on the 1099s?
I think there is a benefit and its that the APA lists the prize money in the tournament everywhere as XYZ$$ What they dont say is that its like 20-30% of that listed amount in actual cash. The rest is that bullshit valuation on jackets, cues and rings. They are locked into valuation bc thats what they advertise these overvalued trinkets are worth. Now if they actually were to list the true values of these items, they would be forced to admit their million dollar ++ payouts are but a fraction of this.
Bottom line is the players are getting feked here. We are marketed an APA payout that is really false and then we also get bent over on taxes paying for that fake amount.
Im pretty pissed, and the more I think about this the more pissed I get.
Why not send out true cost on the 1099s?
I think there is a benefit and its that the APA lists the prize money in the tournament everywhere as XYZ$$ What they dont say is that its like 20-30% of that listed amount in actual cash. The rest is that bullshit valuation on jackets, cues and rings. They are locked into valuation bc thats what they advertise these overvalued trinkets are worth. Now if they actually were to list the true values of these items, they would be forced to admit their million dollar ++ payouts are but a fraction of this.
Bottom line is the players are getting feked here. We are marketed an APA payout that is really false and then we also get bent over on taxes paying for that fake amount.
Im pretty pissed, and the more I think about this the more pissed I get.
Boy - is this interesting.
We also send 1099's to all of the players. And keep in mind this is an accumulated payout of $600 or more. This means adding all of the smaller amounts and if it exceeds $600, we much (by law) send out a 1099.
BTW - I do not actually do this so I don't have an intimate understanding , but I have a pretty good understanding.
Uwate is correct.
I think the main reason the APA is using these inflated prize amounts is to make their payout look BIGGER.
None of the CSI events do that. Our payouts are usually cash, however we did give away 100 cuesticks back in 2005 and they were listed at the manufacturer's list price ($250 each) even though we did not pay that much. (we got a discount because of the quantity).
We would NEVER inflate the value to the extent I am hearing.
Does this mean that the BCAPL actually gives out mroe than the APA. I would not be suprised!!
I know I should not say anything (because I am a competitor) but in all honestly, the facts seem to speak for themselves. The APA is a great business model, but it appears that they have a hard time being real accurate in their distribution of information.
I am not familiar enough to really understand where the APA gets a tax advantage for this manipulatioin. But I do understand where they get a PR reason. LOL
Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL
We also send 1099's to all of the players. And keep in mind this is an accumulated payout of $600 or more. This means adding all of the smaller amounts and if it exceeds $600, we much (by law) send out a 1099.
BTW - I do not actually do this so I don't have an intimate understanding , but I have a pretty good understanding.
Uwate is correct.
I think the main reason the APA is using these inflated prize amounts is to make their payout look BIGGER.
None of the CSI events do that. Our payouts are usually cash, however we did give away 100 cuesticks back in 2005 and they were listed at the manufacturer's list price ($250 each) even though we did not pay that much. (we got a discount because of the quantity).
We would NEVER inflate the value to the extent I am hearing.
Does this mean that the BCAPL actually gives out mroe than the APA. I would not be suprised!!
I know I should not say anything (because I am a competitor) but in all honestly, the facts seem to speak for themselves. The APA is a great business model, but it appears that they have a hard time being real accurate in their distribution of information.
I am not familiar enough to really understand where the APA gets a tax advantage for this manipulatioin. But I do understand where they get a PR reason. LOL
Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL
Karma can be cruel
You are oh! so correct. The following opinion is for the forum in general and not uwate who is pretty pissed with good reason.
When I and a few others were sounding the alarm about the apa and honesty(nothing to do with players or the darn score keeping) we got a lot of heat from the, If it ain't happening to me it ain't true crowd.
Also lots of heat from the pool pimp/hustler business who look up to the apa as the master pool pimp. They guard each others territory here like pit bulls, against any negative opinion that may shed light on each others street corner.
Inflating and passing the costs down to make the consumer pay increases their profit.
Pimps will say thats not greed just business and they may be right. Sometimes its hard to tell the difference.
I think this is too big not to shed light on their true character. We have to pay taxes but we don't have to associate with unscrupulous pool leagues even if its the only one in town.
I hate to say I told you so but I told you, stay away from the apa.These are my last words on the apa.
If you don't know their character after this you don't want to know or a pool pimp with a pool corner of your on.
You are oh! so correct. The following opinion is for the forum in general and not uwate who is pretty pissed with good reason.
When I and a few others were sounding the alarm about the apa and honesty(nothing to do with players or the darn score keeping) we got a lot of heat from the, If it ain't happening to me it ain't true crowd.
Also lots of heat from the pool pimp/hustler business who look up to the apa as the master pool pimp. They guard each others territory here like pit bulls, against any negative opinion that may shed light on each others street corner.
Inflating and passing the costs down to make the consumer pay increases their profit.
Pimps will say thats not greed just business and they may be right. Sometimes its hard to tell the difference.
I think this is too big not to shed light on their true character. We have to pay taxes but we don't have to associate with unscrupulous pool leagues even if its the only one in town.
I hate to say I told you so but I told you, stay away from the apa.These are my last words on the apa.
If you don't know their character after this you don't want to know or a pool pimp with a pool corner of your on.
Just to clarify, the only APA payout that includes merchandise is the national singles event in April, which is actually more than half cash. At the August event itself, over a million dollars is awarded, all money.
All I'm doing here is clarifying. I don't know what APA paid for "$350" cues or "$100" jackets in the singles program, nor does anyone else here, just like almost nobody here knows what CSI paid for the "$250" cues they gave away. To draw a conclusion (or even speculate) about inflated payouts based on partial information would be irresponsible, so I will refrain from doing so.
All I'm doing here is clarifying. I don't know what APA paid for "$350" cues or "$100" jackets in the singles program, nor does anyone else here, just like almost nobody here knows what CSI paid for the "$250" cues they gave away. To draw a conclusion (or even speculate) about inflated payouts based on partial information would be irresponsible, so I will refrain from doing so.
APA sending 1099's
APA operator:
I find it interesting you try to put CSI in the same category as APA.
The difference is that APA does this every year, and you said it is 1/2 of the payout. Ours was for a total of $25,000 (100 cues x $250) Joss made in America cues, to celebrate the 30th anniversary of our event. (Way under 5% of our total payouts).
This thread is really about the APA inflating the values of their payouts. Please don't put CSi in the same category.
I don't want to turn this thread into APA vs CSI - that is not the issue.
Thank you.
Mark Griffin. (real name)
APA operator:
I find it interesting you try to put CSI in the same category as APA.
The difference is that APA does this every year, and you said it is 1/2 of the payout. Ours was for a total of $25,000 (100 cues x $250) Joss made in America cues, to celebrate the 30th anniversary of our event. (Way under 5% of our total payouts).
This thread is really about the APA inflating the values of their payouts. Please don't put CSi in the same category.
I don't want to turn this thread into APA vs CSI - that is not the issue.
Thank you.
Mark Griffin. (real name)
I didn't bring CSI into this thread and make comparisons. CSI was already there and I said conclusion/speculation without all the information would be irresponsible. Don't you agree?
I did sign and give my SSN....I was not aware that I was going to be getting a 1099 for the cue or jacket. If so,I would have refused both. I can speak for (6) that went last year. NONE of us were aware of this. They couldn't have taxed me on something I refused but I wasn't given an option. I have not found any that agree with how that APA handled this with the prizes,etc
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the APA does not benefit with all of the 1099's issued for 2011??