How sports betting taxes work and what you might owe
Sports betting only became legal in the United States in 2018 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal ban and ruled that states could individually determine what forms of gambling were legal within their boundaries.
This opened the floodgates for various state legislatures to decide whether to allow sports betting. Currently, 40 states and the District of Columbia authorize the practice, and 34 permit online sports betting, according to the American Gaming Association.
This has tax implications for millions of gamblers — who are also taxpayers. There is no ambiguity here, according to tax experts.
'Broadly, winnings from sports betting are taxable income,' said April Walker, senior manager for Tax Practice and Ethics with the American Institute of CPAs.
Sports betting winnings are taxed under the Internal Revenue Service's designation for gambling income and losses. If your winnings total $600 or more and are at least 300 times the amount wagered, then a payer, such as a casino, is required to issue you a Form W-2G.
While supplying the form is the responsibility of the payer, Walker noted, you are still liable for reporting and ensuring taxes are paid on those sports betting winnings, whether or not you receive the form.
If you're dealing with a mobile sports gambling provider, like DraftKings or FanDuel, the reporting standards are a little different, according to New England-based accounting firm Baker Newman Noyes. If you reach net earnings above $600 or 300 times your original wager, you can also receive a Form 1099-MISC from an online sports wagering organization that will report your net earnings from the previous tax year. Net earnings would be calculated as your cash winnings minus any cash entry fees and adding any cash bonuses received from the platform.
Individual tax filers must report total gambling income as 'Other income: gambling' on line 8b of Schedule 1, 1040. The only exception is if you are filing as a professional gambler, meaning someone 'engaged in sports betting primarily for profit rather than only as a hobby,' per the Journal of Financial Planning. In this case, the filer would use Form 1040, Schedule C to report profit or loss from a business, and they would note winnings as revenue and be able to deduct their losses directly. Self-employed filers — in this case, professional gamblers — must pay self-employment tax, which is 15.3 percent, half of which is subject to deduction, for Social Security and Medicare.
This embedded content is not available in your region.
To answer the tax rate question, we must work backward. Taxpayers whose winnings exceed $5,000 and 300 times the amount wagered will automatically have 24% of their total payout withheld by the payer, according to Walker. This rate could be higher in states that have additional income tax, in which case the 24% federal rate would be withheld on top of the state's personal income tax rate.
Still, when it comes time to file your income taxes, this withholding doesn't ensure you've paid the required amount of tax. Rates range from 10% to 37%, depending on your total income, so based on what tax bracket you end up in at the end of the tax year, you'll either get a refund or have to pay out a higher amount from your winnings.
Read more: How tax withholding works
Perhaps the most pivotal — and confusing — part of understanding how to report gambling income on your federal income tax return is factoring in your losses. The correct method, according to Walker, comes down to what the IRS refers to as 'sessions.' This philosophy comes from a 2015 IRS notice on slot machine play, indicating that total wins and losses need to be calculated by the day they were made. Each day counts as an individual session, so rather than net your total losses against your total winnings, you will need to calculate the end amount of each session, or day, and determine which days were a loss and which days ended with winnings.
Still, the only way that losses can be offset against gambling winnings is if you itemize your deductions rather than take the standard deduction, which is $15,000 for single tax filers on 2025 taxes. Using the session method, you could add your total losses on Schedule A, line 16 as gambling losses.
Whether you can itemize your deductions to offset your winnings when it comes to state income tax depends on which state you're filing in. Nine states, including North Carolina, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, do not allow itemized deductions for gambling losses, per an article in the Journal of Financial Planning.
Even professional gamblers can only offset their total winnings with their losses and get to zero. There is no tax refund for losses that exceed the total amount of winnings, Walker said.
To minimize sports betting taxes, the key is having a demonstrable record of all of your wagers, where and when they occurred, proof that they occurred (like receipts and tickets), and evidence of your total amount of winnings and losses. This will be particularly useful if you find yourself audited by a tax authority.
'Gambling has been around for quite a while, and so the rules on that have not changed,' Walker said. 'The difference is that there might be more people who are doing it on a regular, daily basis, and I would encourage them to understand how important it is to do their bookkeeping so they are not having to scramble after the fact and if they are able to itemize, and take advantage of all of their losses.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court gives DOGE access to millions of Americans' private Social Security data
The Brief The Supreme Court ruled DOGE can access personal data from the Social Security Administration. The case marks the first Supreme Court decision involving DOGE, once led by Elon Musk. The dissent warned the decision puts Americans' sensitive information at risk. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light for the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access one of the country's most sensitive databases — the Social Security Administration's internal systems — which hold information on nearly every American. The 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines, marks the first major Supreme Court ruling involving DOGE, the controversial agency once led by Elon Musk. The Court's majority reversed a lower court's order that limited DOGE's access under federal privacy law, siding with the administration's argument that the restrictions were hampering its anti-fraud mission. Liberal justices dissented, warning the decision erodes vital privacy protections. The backstory The Department of Government Efficiency — or DOGE — was established during President Trump's second term and tasked with rooting out government waste and inefficiency. Its first director was Elon Musk, who called the Social Security program a "Ponzi scheme" and repeatedly targeted it as a key source of fraud. Although Musk has since stepped away from DOGE, the department has continued aggressive efforts to audit and investigate various federal programs. Social Security has remained a top priority. The administration argued that unfettered access to the SSA's internal systems was essential to detect abuse, duplication, and improper payouts — particularly in disability and survivor benefits. Dig deeper The case originated in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander ruled that DOGE's demand for open access to Social Security data amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on limited evidence of wrongdoing. She blocked broad access but allowed DOGE staff with training and security clearance to view anonymized data, and permitted expanded access only if a specific need was documented. The Trump administration appealed, arguing the court was overstepping its role and interfering with executive branch operations. An appeals court upheld the partial block, but the Supreme Court has now lifted it entirely. Solicitor General John Sauer told the Court the restrictions "micromanaged" DOGE's work and undermined its mission. The other side Opponents of the ruling, including the plaintiffs represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, argue that the Social Security Administration contains deeply personal data: salary history, school records, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. They warned that handing this information to a politically driven agency without individualized review poses massive privacy risks. Labor unions and retiree groups joined the lawsuit, saying the system could be weaponized against vulnerable Americans. The dissenting justices agreed. "There is no meaningful check here on the breadth or use of the data," one wrote. "We risk turning privacy law into an empty promise." Why you should care This decision expands the Trump administration's ability to conduct sweeping audits across government agencies using personal data. While supporters frame it as a win for accountability and fraud reduction, critics say it weakens safeguards that prevent misuse of federal databases. It also sets a precedent for how much control the courts can — or cannot — exert over federal agency operations, a core issue as Trump's administration continues to consolidate executive power. What's next With the Supreme Court's backing, DOGE is expected to move quickly in analyzing Social Security data. Critics worry this could lead to mass denials of benefits or politically motivated reviews. Supporters say it could lead to cost-saving reforms. The agency, which has faced more than two dozen lawsuits, remains under scrutiny. Legal challenges are ongoing regarding its personnel decisions, data practices, and oversight authority. The Source This report is based on coverage from the Associated Press and court documents related to the Supreme Court decision in the DOGE v. Democracy Forward case. Additional background was gathered from statements by the U.S. Solicitor General, District Court Judge Ellen Hollander's original ruling, and legal filings from the plaintiff groups, including labor unions and the nonprofit Democracy Forward.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Musk's departure from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the president to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. Advertisement In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that has restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. Advertisement The Trump administration But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. Advertisement The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The plaintiffs called the high court's order 'a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people.' Liz Huston, a spokesperson for the White House, applauded the order. 'The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.' The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with hundreds of lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW. Advertisement Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Chris Megerian contributed to this report.
