FAIR Bet Act to Remedy ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Gambling Implications Musters Support
Posted on: July 22, 2025, 09:59h.
Last updated on: July 22, 2025, 10:12h.
- Rep. Dina Titus’ FAIR Bet Act has bipartisan support
- The legislation would restore gambling losses to 100%
- The deduction was reduced to 90% through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
US Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) filed the FAIR Bet Act, or “Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act,” after Republicans passed their “One Big Beautiful Bill” that eliminated the 100% tax deduction on losses incurred from gambling.
President Donald Trump and the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) has many tax implications that conservatives believe will help the American public and jumpstart the US economy. As it relates to the highly regulated casino and sports betting industries, the legislative package is largely a loser for most gamblers.
An OBBB provision reduces the amount of gambling losses a person can deduct from their annual IRS tax liability from 100% to 90%. While that might not seem like a big deal, it means a person who wins $50K throughout the year gambling but also racks up $50K in losses would need to pay taxes on $5,000 — money they didn’t retain at the end of the tax reporting year.
FAIR Bet seeks to restore the 100% deduction. The one-page bill would amend the OBBB “by striking 90 percent” and inserting “100 percent” in Section 165(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” Without FAIR Bet, the OBBB tax provision is to be enacted next year.
FAIR Bet Rallies Support
With regulated gambling prevalent in nearly every state, the tax consequences of requiring individuals to pay taxes on net winnings they didn’t realize could be substantial. It also hampers a professional gambler’s ability to make a living.
Since Titus filed FAIR Bet, the federal legislation has quickly garnered bipartisan support. Just two weeks since its filing, the bill has garnered 10 cosponsors, with four being Republicans.
FAIR Bet has the support of Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Steven Horsford (D-NV), Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Susie Lee (D-NV), Gil Cisneros (D-CA), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Darren Soto (D-FL), and Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA).
Reschenthaler co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus with Titus.
FAIR Bet Will Receive Fair Shake
After introducing FAIR Bet to the US House of Representatives, Titus’ bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it has since sat. The bill is set for an off-site committee hearing in Las Vegas this Friday, July 25.
The House Ways and Means Committee has scheduled a “Full Committee Hearing” on the OBBB for 10 am PDT. The event will take place at the YESCO (Young Electric Sign Company) headquarters at 5119 Cameron St. The electric sign manufacturer owns the world-famous “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” landmark and is responsible for Vegas Vic, the Fremont Street Experience canopy, and many other historic signs and electronic displays across the Las Vegas Valley.
The public is invited to submit written testimony about the OBBB and FAIR Bet. Such submissions can be emailed here.
When a committee leaves the nation’s capital to conduct a meeting regarding legislation at or near a site related to the subject of the hearing, it’s known as a field hearing. The Congressional Research Service says such gatherings can raise the public visibility of an issue, provide opportunities for congresspeople to evaluate the issue in the real world, and reinforce a lawmaker’s relationship with their constituents by bringing the matter before them.
Last Comment ( 1 )
Vito & Debra Mundo 8445 Charter Club Circle Unit 1 Fort Myers, Fl 33919 Vmundoprofessionalservices@gmail.com 516 398 2375 Speaker Michael Johnson 521 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20515 Dear Speaker Johnson: I am writing to urge you to support the Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act ("FAIR BET Act") introduced by Congresswoman Dina Titus (NV-01) on July 7, 2025, which has immediately gained bipartisan support. The FAIR BET Act does away with an injustice in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" which unfairly taxes law-abiding taxpayers by not allowing them to deduct the full amount of their gambling losses from their gambling winnings. The FAIR BET Act addresses the taxation of unrealized phantom income from gambling by allowing the full amount of gambling losses to offset gambling winnings, not just 90% as set by the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” In addition to the current injustice sought to be remedied by the current version of the FAIR BET Act, I urge you to add to the FAIR BET Act to correct a related unfair taxation on unrealized phantom income from gambling winnings when calculating Medicare premiums. My spouse and I have worked our whole lives and have each contributed to Medicare for over 40 years. We are now retired and on Medicare. We, along with many other Americans, are paying increased Medicare premiums pursuant to the Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Account (IRMAA) based on gambling winnings without any deductions for gambling losses. On our federal tax return, we can deduct gambling losses from gambling winnings prior to calculating our taxes; however, for purposes of Medicare premiums, IRMAA is calculated based on your “Modified Adjusted Gross Income” (MAGI) from line 11 on the 1040 federal tax return which includes gambling winnings before deducting any gambling losses. As a result, we are paying premiums, or a Medicare tax, on unrealized phantom income similar to what the FAIR BET Act is intended to correct. For example, if my spouse and I were to spend $10,000 in total gambling bets and walk away with that same $10,000 - netting $0.00 winnings - the IRMAA, nonetheless, calculates that $0.00 net gain as $10,000 income for the purposes of calculating Medicare premiums. I have no problem paying the IRMAA on our actual earned income, but it is unfair for American taxpayers to pay IRMAA based upon unrealized phantom gambling income (i.e., gambling winnings without a reduction for gambling losses). I have appealed this matter to the Social Security Administration, which calculates IRMAA and have been repeatedly told that according to the current law, the Social Security Administration can only look at Line 11(MAGI) on Form 1040 of the federal tax return, which includes the unrealized phantom income from gambling winnings without an offset for gambling losses. This can only change upon a change in the law. The deduction for gambling losses prior to Line 11 is not without precedent, as Line 10 on Form 1040 allows for a deduction from Schedule 1 for certain adjustments to income which are on Schedule 1, Lines 11 to 24. Schedule 1, Line 8p includes winnings from gambling, but Schedule 1 does not include a line for gambling losses like it does for other income in Schedule 1. There is no adjustment for the losses from gambling in Lines 11 through 26, yet deductions for costs, losses, and expenses to income in Schedule 1 is allowed for other income, such as: certain business expenses, alimony payments, expenses related to rental income, etc. The tax law merely needs to be amended to include gambling losses, up to the amount of gambling winnings in Lines 11 to 24 of Schedule 1. This change has no effect on the amount of income tax due since gambling losses are already allowed to offset gambling winnings in Schedule A, Line 16 (and as the FAIR BET Act seeks to preserve). My spouse and I both have prescription coverage from our former employers, yet because of IRMAA, we still get charged a Part D prescription premium, even though we do not have prescription coverage through Part D of Medicare. We urge you to support the FAIR BET Act and implore you to amend the Bill to address the inequity of including unrealized phantom gambling income when calculating IRMAA, which can only be corrected by the Legislature. Should the Legislature fail to correct both of these issues, it could have a chilling effect on the gambling industry and derail the exponential growth of tax revenue derived from gambling that the government - both on a federal and state level - have enjoyed over the past few years as well as penalize law abiding tax payers. I would be happy to discuss this matter or provide further information if needed. Thank You for Your Attention to this matter, Vito Mundo