Updated for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21, signed July 4, 2025) - The OBBBA permanently extended TCJA's expanded definition of 'losses from wagering transactions' to include business expenses and added the 90% deduction limit. That narrows a potential advantage professional gamblers would have regained after 2025 under pre-TCJA law, but the professional-versus-recreational tax result remains fact-specific. Last reviewed: August 2026 by Greg Monaco, CPA
In This Article
- The Groetzinger standard: how the IRS defines a professional gambler
- The nine-factor hobby loss test (IRC Section 183)
- Professional vs. recreational: side-by-side comparison
- How OBBBA narrowed the pre-2026 professional-treatment advantage
- Potential consequences when the facts support professional treatment
- Key cases that shaped the law
- Documentation requirements
- NJ treatment of professional gamblers
- Worked dollar example: professional vs. recreational comparison
- Frequently asked questions
When the facts establish a gambling trade or business, an individual generally reports the activity on Schedule C, with consequences that can include business-expense treatment, self-employment tax, Social Security credits, and access to eligible self-employed retirement and health-insurance rules. The OBBBA's 90% deduction limit changed the comparison beginning in 2026. Neither classification is universally better: winnings, losses, expenses, itemization, possible QBI, self-employment tax, and state treatment all affect the result, while the underlying facts determine the classification.
Before you get to Schedule C, identify the taxpayer and the entity. Schedule C is the route for an individual sole proprietor or a disregarded single-member LLC whose facts establish a Section 162 gambling trade or business. It is NOT the owner's route when the gambling is carried on by a partnership or S corporation: there, the entity files its own return, separately states the wagering gains and losses (Schedule K-1, including the Code K information the instructions require), and the individual partner or shareholder reports those items through Schedule E, not a second Schedule C - while a non-business entity routes the owner back to the casual-gambling lines. Forming an LLC or making an S election does not by itself create professional status; the Groetzinger facts still have to be there. And basis, at-risk, passive-activity, excess-business-loss, reasonable-compensation (S corporation), and Section 165(d) limits do not disappear because an entity exists.
The Groetzinger Standard: How the IRS Defines a Professional Gambler
The Supreme Court established the standard in Commissioner v. Groetzinger (480 U.S. 23, 1987). Robert Groetzinger went to the racetrack 6 days per week for 48 weeks per year, spending 60-80 hours per week studying racing data and placing wagers. He wagered $72,032, won $70,000, and had a net loss of $2,032. He had no other employment.
The Court ruled 6-3 (Justice Blackmun writing) that gambling constitutes a 'trade or business' when the taxpayer pursues it full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood. The Court explicitly rejected the 'Frankfurter gloss' - you do NOT need to hold yourself out to others or sell goods/services.
The Nine-Factor Hobby Loss Test (IRC Section 183)
IRC Section 183 applies nine non-exclusive factors from Treas. Reg. 1.183-2(b) to whether the gambling activity is engaged in for profit; no factor or numerical majority controls. Section 183(d) creates a rebuttable presumption only of profit motive when gross income exceeds attributable deductions in 3 of 5 consecutive years. It is not a safe harbor: failure creates no contrary hobby presumption, and meeting it does not by itself establish a Section 162 trade or business or Schedule C treatment. Groetzinger's continuity-and-regularity inquiry remains separate:
Factor 1: Manner Carried On
Detailed records, a separate bank account, result tracking, operational changes, and a written profit plan are relevant evidence. Rev. Proc. 77-29 describes recordkeeping for gambling wins and losses, but no single record decides profit motive.
Factor 2: Expertise
Have you studied the games, developed and refined systems, attended training, kept records, and adapted your method over time? Treas. Reg. 1.183-2 weighs preparation, expertise, and operating method on all the facts - it does not rank poker over slots as a matter of law, so a systematic, well-documented slot player can satisfy this factor while a casual poker player may not. Baxter v. United States (arising under the former Sections 1348 and 911 maximum-tax rules, on extraordinary facts) treated a full-time professional poker player's winnings as earned personal-service income; it is not a modern Section 183 skill-game taxonomy or a general rule that poker skill by itself establishes a gambling trade or business.
Factor 3: Time and Effort
Groetzinger spent 60-80 hours/week. Myers prevailed at roughly 40 hours/week while also driving a truck. There's no minimum-hours rule - courts weigh continuity, regularity, and profit motive, and fewer hours simply means the other facts have to carry more weight.
Factor 4: Expectation of Asset Appreciation
This factor may be neutral when the activity has no relevant appreciating assets; its application depends on the actual activity and property.
Factor 5: Success in Similar Activities
Success in converting similar activities from unprofitable to profitable is relevant on the facts.
Factor 6: History of Income/Losses
Losses, their causes, the startup period, and operational responses are relevant. Repeated losses do not create a contrary hobby presumption.
Factor 7: Occasional Profits
The amount of profits relative to losses and the taxpayer's investment is relevant.
Factor 8: Financial Status
A high-income professional claiming gambling losses raises hobby red flags. Merkin: Park Avenue psychiatrist - overstated hours (claimed 1,128, actual 319).
Factor 9: Personal Pleasure
Personal enjoyment is relevant but does not decide profit motive or trade-or-business status.
What the case law actually shows: commentators have tabulated the decided cases and found taxpayers with more favorable facts win more often - no surprise. But Treas. Reg. §1.183-2(b) says the determination is NOT made by counting factors, so treat any '3 factors = 60%' style scoring as a reading aid, not a probability. The IRS and the courts look at the whole picture.
Professional vs. Recreational: Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | Recreational Gambler | Professional Gambler |
|---|---|---|
| Income reported on | Schedule 1, Line 8b | Schedule C |
| Losses reported on | Schedule A, Line 16 (must itemize) | Schedule C (no itemizing needed) |
| Business expenses | NOT deductible (OBBBA made permanent) | Part of 90% cap calculation |
| SE tax | None | 15.3% on net profit |
| 90% loss cap | Applies to Schedule A losses | Applies to ALL losses + expenses combined |
| Net Operating Loss | Not available | Not available (165(d) prohibits) |
| QBI deduction | Not applicable | Conditional - gambling gains/losses may be QBI only if a valid Section 162 gambling trade or business exists and each item meets Section 199A rules (Form 1120-S/1065/8995 instructions make this an entity/taxpayer-level determination); not an automatic 20%, and wage/UBIA and taxable-income limits still apply |
| Retirement plans | Not applicable | Solo 401(k), SEP-IRA available |
| Health insurance | Not deductible as business | Deductible under IRC 162(l) |
| Social Security credits | Not earned | Earned through SE tax |
How OBBBA Narrowed the Pre-2026 Professional-Treatment Advantage
In Mayo v. Commissioner (136 T.C. No. 4, 2011), the Tax Court allowed a professional gambler's ordinary and necessary business expenses to be deducted separately from the IRC Section 165(d) limit on wagering losses. The TCJA temporarily expanded the definition of wagering losses for 2018-2025 to include those business expenses. Without further legislation, the pre-TCJA treatment reflected in Mayo would have resumed after 2025.
The OBBBA made the expanded definition permanent and added a 90% limit. Starting in tax year 2026, deductions for losses from wagering transactions - including otherwise allowable business expenses treated as wagering losses - are limited to 90% of those deductions and may not exceed wagering gains. This reduces the potential federal advantage of professional treatment relative to the pre-TCJA rules that otherwise would have returned, but it does not make recreational treatment uniformly better. The following example illustrates one set of facts:
Worked Example: Professional Gambler in 2026
- Gross winnings: $700,000
- Wagering losses: $560,000
- Business expenses (travel, software, coaching, home office): $70,000
- Total deductions: $630,000
- 90% of total deductions: $567,000
- Taxable income: $133,000 - despite only ~$70,000 of actual economic profit ($700K - $560K - $70K), so ~$63,000 is phantom income created purely by the 90% cap
- Federal before any conditional QBI deduction: SE base $133,000 × 92.35% = $122,825.50; SE tax = $18,792.30; deductible half = $9,396.15; taxable income after the $16,100 single standard deduction = $107,503.85; graduated federal income tax = $18,398.92; combined federal tax ≈ $37,191
- NJ is not $0. On simplified single/no-other-income facts, the result depends on how the separate $70,000 of business expenses is classified under NJ law: roughly $2,321 to $6,728, not zero. A return-specific NJ category analysis is required.
A recreational gambler with the same $700K wins and $560K losses (but no deductible business expenses) faces this math under OBBBA §70114: 90% of $560K losses = $504K deductible, so taxable income = $700K - $504K = $196,000. That's $140,000 of actual economic profit plus $56,000 of disallowed-loss 'phantom income'. Using the 2026 single brackets, federal tax on $196,000 is $39,638: $17,966 through $105,700 plus $90,300 × 24% ($21,672). Tax on $140,000 is $26,198, so the $56,000 phantom increment adds $13,440. Professional status changes the deduction and SE-tax mechanics; it is not a flat marginal-rate comparison.
Potential Consequences When the Facts Support Professional Treatment
Professional status is not an election made solely to obtain a preferred tax result; the activity must satisfy the governing facts-and-circumstances standards. When those facts support trade-or-business treatment, relevant consequences can include:
- Net profit above $50K consistently: SE tax hurts, but the QBI deduction (up to 20%, if a valid Section 162 gambling trade or business exists and the other Section 199A tests are met), health insurance deduction, and retirement plan contributions may offset it
- Solo 401(k) contributions: Up to $24,500 employee deferral (TY2026) + employer profit-sharing of ~20% of net self-employment earnings (the 25% plan rate translates to ~20% of net profit for a sole proprietor) = significant tax-deferred savings. Example: $100K net profit allows ~$43,100 in total contributions
- Health insurance: Self-employed health insurance deduction under IRC 162(l) - available to professional gamblers but NOT recreational
- Social Security credits: Earned through SE tax. Minimum ~$7,560 in net SE earnings for 4 credits in 2026 ($1,890 per credit per the SSA 2026 Fact Sheet); 40 credits (10 years) = retirement eligibility
Key Cases That Shaped the Law
Winners (Taxpayers Who Qualified)
- Groetzinger (1987): Supreme Court, 6-3. Full-time racetrack bettor, 60-80 hrs/week
- Castagnetta (T.C. Summ. Op. 2006-24): Part-time truck driver, 40+ hrs/week horse racing, detailed records. (Summary opinion - nonprecedential under IRC Section 7463(b); persuasive illustration only.)
- Myers: Trucker, ~40 hrs/week slots over 10 years. (Decided as a Tax Court summary opinion - nonprecedential under IRC Section 7463(b); verify the exact citation before relying on it.)
Loss-Deduction / Former-Law Cases (not professional-status holdings)
- Kochevar (T.C. Memo. 1995-607): The court assumed business status and decided a Section 165(d) wagering-loss issue for the government; it did NOT hold the taxpayer was a professional gambler. It illustrates that progressive slot play is not automatically disqualifying, not a favorable status outcome.
Losers (Taxpayers Who Failed)
- Boneparte (T.C. Memo. 2017-193): 8 of 9 factors against; 20% accuracy penalty imposed
- Merkin (T.C. Memo. 2008-146): Park Avenue psychiatrist; overstated hours (1,128 claimed vs. 319 actual)
- Mercier (Bench Opinion, Docket No. 7499-22S): No separate bank account, no contemporaneous records; switched from Schedule A to Schedule C after receiving deficiency notice - red flag. (Bench opinion in a small tax case - nonprecedential under IRC Section 7463(b).)
- Zalesiak (T.C. Summ. Op. 2019-16): 98.1% of income from day job. (Summary opinion - nonprecedential under IRC Section 7463(b).)
Documentation Requirements
Professional gambler status lives or dies on documentation. You need:
- Contemporaneous gambling log per Rev. Proc. 77-29: date, type of gambling, location/platform, start/end time, buy-in amount, cash-out amount, net result, companions present
- Separate bank account for all gambling activity
- Business plan documenting your approach, time commitment, and profit targets
- Receipts for all business expenses (travel, equipment, software subscriptions)
- Platform win/loss statements from every sportsbook and casino
- W-2G forms with reconciliation to session results
- Time log documenting hours spent - be honest (Merkin lost for overstating hours)
NJ Treatment of Professional Gamblers
How NJ taxes a federally-qualifying professional gambler is not clearly settled. N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(g) puts gambling winnings in NJ's net-gambling category (Category (g), Line 24, same-year netting). But N.J.A.C. 18:35-1.1 generally includes income from an activity that qualifies and reports as a federal trade or business in NJ's net-profits-from-business category (Category (b)) - reduced by allowed business expenses. Which category a professional's results belong in (and where the expenses go - NJ does not allow netting across categories) is a position decision on your specific facts; as of July 2026, NJ has published no guidance squarely on point. Do not assume revenue in one category and expenses in another, and do not assume the recreational and professional NJ answers are identical.
Worked Example: Professional vs. Recreational Gambler Comparison
Meet Anthony, a NJ resident who plays poker full-time. He has no W-2 employment. He plays 50+ hours per week at Borgata, online (WSOP.com/PokerStars NJ), and travels to tournaments.
Anthony's 2025 Gambling Activity
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Gross poker winnings (cash games + tournaments) | $185,000 |
| Gross poker losses | $142,000 |
| Business expenses: travel (flights, hotels, meals) | $18,000 |
| Business expenses: coaching, software, database subs | $4,200 |
| Business expenses: home office | $3,600 |
| Net economic profit | $17,200 |
Scenario A: Professional Gambler (Schedule C) - TY2025
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Schedule C gross income | $185,000 |
| Wagering losses + expenses ($142,000 + $25,800) | ($167,800) |
| Schedule C net profit | $17,200 |
| SE tax (15.3% x 92.35% of $17,200 = $2,430.28, rounded) | $2,430 |
| QBI deduction (20% of $15,985 = net profit minus the $1,215 deductible half of SE tax per Reg. 1.199A-3(b)(1)(vi); available only if a valid Section 162 gambling trade or business exists and the Section 199A tests are met) | ($3,197) |
| Federal income tax (after standard deduction) | ~$0 |
| Total federal tax | ~$2,430 |
Note: the QBI line is shown only if Section 199A applies to this gambling trade or business - a conditional, item-by-item determination, not an automatic 20% - and it does not change this result. The standard deduction already reduces taxable income to about $0, so federal income tax is ~$0 with or without QBI.
Scenario B: Recreational Gambler (Schedule A) - TY2025
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Gambling income (Schedule 1, Line 8b) | $185,000 |
| Gambling losses (Schedule A, Line 16) - itemizing; standard deduction forgone (they are mutually exclusive) | ($142,000) |
| Business expenses | NOT deductible |
| Federal taxable income | $43,000 |
| Federal income tax (2025 single brackets) | ~$4,922 |
| SE tax | $0 |
| Total federal tax | ~$4,922 |
(this example assumes you itemize - if you take the standard deduction, losses provide no federal offset)
NJ Return (Both Scenarios)
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Net gambling income (Line 24): $185,000 - $142,000 | $43,000 |
| NJ exemptions | ($1,000) |
| NJ taxable income | $42,000 |
| NJ GIT | ~$828 |
In TY2025, professional status saves Anthony ~$2,492 ($4,922 - $2,430): Schedule C absorbs both the wagering losses and the business expenses, while the recreational filer must give up the standard deduction to itemize the losses (see the corrected Scenario B above). On the NJ side, the recreational scenario is straightforward Category (g) netting ($43,000 on Line 24); the professional scenario's NJ category is a position decision (see 'NJ Treatment' above) - the $828 figure assumes Category (g) treatment and could differ materially under a Category (b) business classification.
2026 Comparison: How the 90% Cap Changes the Math
Under the OBBBA's 90% cap (Section 70114), Anthony's total deductions of $167,800 are capped at $151,020 (90% x $167,800 in combined losses and expenses). His Schedule C taxable income becomes $185,000 - $151,020 = $33,980. SE tax: ~$4,800. Federal income tax after the standard deduction: ~$1,600. Total federal tax: ~$6,400 - on $17,200 of actual profit. As a recreational gambler under the 90% cap: losses are capped at $127,800 (90% x $142,000), and because those losses are an itemized deduction he must forgo the standard deduction - taxable income is $185,000 - $127,800 = $57,200, and the federal tax on it (2026 single brackets) is ~$7,296. No SE tax. Professional status still saves Anthony ~$900 in 2026 on these facts - the 90% cap narrows the gap but does not flip it. (Every line here assumes no other deductions; QBI is left out here because it is conditional on a valid Section 162 gambling trade or business and does not change this result; the NJ classification is a separate open question - see NJ Treatment above.) NJ still allows 100% netting: $43,000 on Line 24 regardless. (This example sits below the Section 68 '2/37' threshold of $640,600 single / $768,700 MFJ; a higher-income itemizer would lose a further ~2/37 of the surviving loss deduction to the revived Section 68 limitation, on top of the 90% cap.)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be a professional gambler if I have a day job?
Yes. Myers succeeded while working as a trucker. The key is whether you pursue gambling 'with regularity to the production of income' - not whether it's your sole occupation. However, if 98%+ of your income comes from your day job (Zalesiak), it's very hard to qualify.
Does playing slots disqualify me from professional status?
No. Kochevar held that progressive slots are not automatically disqualifying. However, purely chance-based games make Factor 2 (expertise) harder to satisfy.
Is professional gambler income subject to self-employment tax?
Yes. Net Schedule C profit is subject to 15.3% SE tax (12.4% Social Security on the first $184,500 for TY2026 + 2.9% Medicare on all earnings). The 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax applies above $200,000 (single) / $250,000 (MFJ).
Can I choose professional status because it produces lower tax?
No. Professional status follows the continuity, regularity, livelihood, and profit-motive facts; it is not a taxpayer election. If the facts may support trade-or-business treatment, model the federal and state consequences using the actual winnings, losses, expenses, itemized deductions, self-employment tax, and any conditional QBI or retirement-plan effects. Use the contact form to request an intake review for a fact-specific analysis.
Does forming an LLC or S corporation make me a professional gambler?
No. Entity choice and professional status are separate questions - the Groetzinger facts-and-circumstances test decides status, and an entity does not supply those facts. The return path also differs by entity: an individual or single-member (disregarded) LLC uses Schedule C, but a gambling partnership or S corporation files its own return, separately states the wagering gains and losses on Schedule K-1, and routes them to the owner through Schedule E - not a second Schedule C. A non-business entity instead routes the owner to the casual-gambling lines. Basis, at-risk, passive-activity, reasonable-compensation (S corporation), excess-business-loss, and the Section 165(d) loss limit all still apply.
Where can I get help?
Gregory Monaco, CPA, MBA works with gambling-tax return treatment and record reconciliation within accepted written scopes; this describes experience and client work, not formal specialist recognition. Legal classification and matters outside an accepted tax-return scope require the appropriate independent professional. Use the contact form to request an intake review.
Need Help Evaluating the Facts and Tax Consequences?
Professional-versus-recreational treatment can materially change a return, but classification begins with the governing facts rather than a preferred result. I can evaluate the activity and model the federal and New Jersey consequences using your actual records. I'm Greg Monaco, a NJ-licensed CPA. Greg is the sole practitioner and personally reviews, approves, and signs all client-facing work.
Use the contact form to request an intake review
Related Articles
Related reading: NJ Sportsbook Platform Guide | Session Method Guide | IRS Detection Methods
Circular 230 Disclosure: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute tax advice. Written tax advice from a Circular 230 practitioner is governed by 31 C.F.R. §10.37; Treasury’s 2014 final regulations eliminated the former “covered opinion” rules and their mandatory disclaimer legend, so no such legend appears here. Tax laws change frequently; consult a licensed CPA about your specific facts.