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. On September 16, 2026 the House Ways and Means Committee ordered H.R. 10357 reported; its Title VII would remove the 90% limitation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025. It is not law, and current law still applies.
In This Article
- The Groetzinger standard: how the courts define 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.
Identify the taxpayer, activity, and legal owner before selecting any return path. Entity classification, disregarded-entity rules, information returns, payment flow, governing agreements, and the complete facts can change the return. This page does not prescribe Schedule C, Schedule E, Schedule K-1, an entity, or an election. Forming an entity does not by itself create trade-or-business status, and entity or contract questions may require independent counsel.
The Groetzinger Standard: How the Courts Define 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 if gambling 'is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby,' it is a 'trade or business.' Full-time play was the fact before the Court, not a stated minimum. 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 (633 F. Supp. 912 (D. Nev. 1986), 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 (T.C. Summ. Op. 2007-194, nonprecedential) prevailed at about 40 hours/week of slot play while also spending 25-35 hours/week running the trucking business she owned. 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 about 1,128; the court credited only the 319 shown on his casino Player's Club statement).
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: the decided cases turn on each taxpayer's full record, and 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 (2025 forms) | Schedule C |
| Losses reported on | Schedule A, Line 16 on 2025 forms; line 17a on the 2026 draft (must itemize) | Schedule C (no itemizing needed) |
| Gambling-related expenses | Not business expenses. Personal living costs stay nondeductible (IRC 262), but IRS Pub. 529 counts expenses incurred in connection with the gambling activity, such as travel to and from a casino, as part of the Schedule A gambling-loss deduction, within the same winnings and 90% limits | Otherwise deductible costs incurred in carrying on wagering transactions are part of the 90% cap calculation |
| SE tax | None | 15.3% of 92.35% of net profit (Schedule SE); the 12.4% Social Security part stops at the $184,500 2026 wage base |
| 90% loss cap | Applies to Schedule A gambling losses, including any qualifying gambling-related expenses | Applies to wagering losses plus otherwise deductible costs incurred in carrying on wagering transactions, after other limits such as the 50% meals rule |
| Net Operating Loss | Not available | Not available - 165(d)(1)(B) limits the deduction to same-year wagering gains, so the activity cannot produce a net loss |
| QBI deduction | Not applicable | Conditional - gambling gains and losses may be QBI only if a valid Section 162 gambling trade or business exists and each item meets the Section 199A rules; no IRS guidance squarely addresses wagering gains as QBI. Not an automatic 20%; the wage/UBIA and taxable-income limits still apply, and for 2026 a $400 minimum deduction applies when active QBI is at least $1,000 (IRC 199A(i)) |
| Retirement plans | Not applicable | Solo 401(k) or SEP eligibility and contribution limits require a qualifying plan, compensation and participant facts |
| Health insurance | Not deductible as business | Potential IRC 162(l) deduction, subject to Form 7206 earned-income, coverage and other limits |
| 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. 81 (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. For tax years beginning after 2025, Section 165(d) allows only 90% of otherwise allowable wagering losses and expenses, and the allowable amount cannot exceed wagering gains. For a casual gambler, the federal wagering-loss deduction remains an itemized deduction. 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. It assumes a qualifying gambling trade or business, winnings and losses measured as the net results of each winning and losing session or tournament, and substantiated, otherwise deductible expenses with no meals in the expense line:
Worked Example: Professional Gambler in 2026
- Gross winnings: $700,000
- Wagering losses: $560,000
- Business expenses other than meals (airfare and lodging, software, coaching, home office): $70,000
- Total deductions: $630,000
- 90% of total deductions: $567,000
- Schedule C net profit: $133,000 (before the deductible half of SE tax, the standard deduction and any QBI deduction) - 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, Category (b) - where N.J.A.C. 18:35-1.1 points when the activity qualifies and reports as a federal trade or business - nets the full losses and business costs to $70,000, about $2,321 of NJ tax. If the same results were reported as Category (g) net gambling winnings, the $70,000 of business costs would have no place to go and the tax would be about $6,728 on $140,000. Schedule NJ-BUS-1 has no specific line for the federal 90% limit, so a return-specific NJ analysis is still 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 of itemized deductions. Because income before itemized deductions ($700,000) exceeds the $640,600 single threshold at which the 37% bracket begins, the new Section 68 limitation (enacted by OBBBA Section 70111) also trims those deductions by 2/37 of the lesser of the $504,000 deduction or the $59,400 excess - about $3,211 - so taxable income = $700K - $504K + $3,211 = $199,211. That's $140,000 of actual economic profit plus roughly $59,000 of 'phantom income' from the 90% cap and Section 68 together. Using the 2026 single brackets, federal tax on $199,211 is about $40,409: $17,966 through $105,700 plus $93,511 × 24%. Tax on $140,000 alone is $26,198, so the phantom income adds about $14,200. 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 (a $400 minimum QBI deduction applies for 2026 when active QBI is at least $1,000)
- 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. A $100K net-profit illustration can approach $43,100 only under qualifying plan, earned-income, participant and contribution assumptions; it is not automatic eligibility or an individual limit
- Health insurance: A qualifying self-employed activity may support an IRC 162(l) deduction, subject to earned-income and coverage limits, including months eligible for subsidized employer coverage; gambling status alone does not establish the deduction
- Social Security credits: Earned through SE tax. Minimum ~$7,560 of net earnings from self-employment (as computed on Schedule SE) for 4 credits in 2026 ($1,890 per credit per the SSA 2026 fact sheet); 40 credits (about 10 years) = retirement-benefit 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): Truck driver three days a week; handicapped and bet harness races at Yonkers on more than 250 days in 2001 with meticulous records (daily wagers and winnings, speed figures, losing tickets). Held: trade or business. (Summary opinion - nonprecedential under IRC Section 7463(b); the court noted its holding resolves only the 2001 year.)
- Myers (T.C. Summ. Op. 2007-194): Owner-operator of a trucking business (25-35 hrs/week) who played $1 slots about 40 hrs/week; gambling since 1992, self-described professional since 2000; held in the trade or business of gambling for 2003. (Summary opinion - nonprecedential under IRC Section 7463(b).)
Loss-Deduction / Former-Law Cases (not professional-status holdings)
- Kochevar (T.C. Memo. 1995-607): Progressive-slot players with day jobs who reported on Schedule C; the court applied Section 165(d) to limit their wagering losses and related expenses to wagering gains (the pre-Mayo line of cases). It is a loss-limitation case, not a favorable status holding.
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 (claimed about 1,128; the court credited only 319, from his Player's Club statement)
- Mercier (Bench Opinion, Docket No. 7499-22S) (June 6, 2023): 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
Records carry much of the weight in these cases (Merkin, Mercier): they prove winnings, losses, time and expenses and show businesslike conduct, but they do not by themselves establish a profit objective or trade-or-business status, which still turn on all the facts. Records that courts have credited:
- Contemporaneous gambling log - Rev. Proc. 77-29 items (date and type of wager, name and location of the establishment or platform, other persons present, amounts won or lost), plus session start/end times and buy-in/cash-out amounts if you use the session method
- 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 (the Merkin court credited only 319 of the ~1,128 hours claimed)
NJ Treatment of Professional Gamblers
How NJ taxes a federally-qualifying professional gambler has no gambling-specific ruling, but the Division's business-income regulation points one way. N.J.A.C. 18:35-1.1(c) puts in Category (b), net profits from business, 'all income the taxpayer derived from the conduct of a business, profession, or any other activity intended to produce income, provided such activity qualifies and reports as a trade or business for Federal income tax purposes,' reduced by ordinary business costs, and sends income that is not attributable to a trade or business to the other categories. On that reading, a gambler whose activity qualifies and is reported as a federal trade or business reports the winnings, losses and ordinary business costs together in Category (b) on Schedule NJ-BUS-1, and a recreational gambler reports net winnings in Category (g) (N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(g), Line 24, same-year netting). Category (b) also allows ordinary business costs that are only partly deductible federally, such as the half of business meals the federal return disallows (Schedule NJ-BUS-1, Part I, adjustment 4). What remains open is narrower: TB-20(R) describes all gambling winnings as taxable under 54A:5-1(g) without addressing professionals, and as of the Division pages current on the date shown at the end of this article (checked September 2026), NJ has published no guidance applying the business-income regulation to gambling. The NJ category follows the federal facts rather than being a separate choice. Do not report 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. The illustration assumes his poker is a gambling trade or business and that every listed expense is ordinary, necessary, substantiated and otherwise deductible: the travel is away from his tax home, the coaching maintains skills he already uses in the business, and the home office meets the exclusive-and-regular-use test of IRC 280A. Meals are left out of the expense lines: business meals, including meals while traveling, are generally only 50% deductible (IRC 274(n)), and from 2026 the deductible half also falls under the 90% limit. His winnings and losses are the net results of his winning and losing sessions and tournaments, reconciled to his Forms W-2G and platform statements, not totals of every buy-in and cash-out.
Anthony's 2025 Gambling Activity
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Gross poker winnings (cash games + tournaments) | $185,000 |
| Gross poker losses | $142,000 |
| Business expenses: travel (flights and hotels; meals not included) | $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 |
| Conditional QBI deduction (preliminary amount about $3,197, reduced by the 20%-of-taxable-income ceiling after the $15,750 TY2025 single standard deduction; only if the Section 162 and Section 199A requirements are met) | (~$47) |
| Federal income tax (after the TY2025 single standard deduction and conditional QBI deduction) | ~$19 |
| Total federal tax (including the conditional QBI deduction) | ~$2,449 |
This TY2025 illustration assumes a single filer under 65 with no other income, deductions or credits. The QBI line applies only if Section 199A covers the gambling trade or business and its items. After the deductible half of SE tax, AGI is about $15,984.86; the $15,750 standard deduction leaves about $234.86 before QBI. The 20% taxable-income ceiling therefore limits the conditional deduction to about $46.97, leaving about $187.89 and approximately $19 of federal income tax. The $400 active-business minimum starts in TY2026 and does not apply here. If QBI is unavailable, recompute without that deduction; it is not an automatic 20% of profit.
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 | None as business expenses; none claimed here as gambling losses (see note) |
| 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. It also claims none of Anthony's travel as a gambling loss. IRS Publication 529 says gambling losses include expenses incurred in connection with the gambling activity, such as travel to and from a casino; if some of his travel qualifies, it adds to the Schedule A deduction within the same winnings and 90% limits and narrows the gap between the two scenarios, and on these facts it could make the 2026 recreational result the lower one.)
NJ Return (Category (g), the Recreational Treatment; Category (b) Shown Below)
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Net gambling income (Line 24): $185,000 - $142,000 | $43,000 |
| NJ exemptions | ($1,000) |
| NJ taxable income | $42,000 |
| NJ GIT | ~$829 |
In this TY2025 illustration with the conditional QBI deduction, the federal difference is about $2,473 ($4,922 - $2,449): 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, about $829 of NJ tax). If Anthony's poker qualifies and is reported as a federal trade or business, N.J.A.C. 18:35-1.1 points to Category (b) instead (see 'NJ Treatment' above): $185,000 - $142,000 - $25,800 = $17,200 of net profits from business, less the $1,000 exemption, is about $227 of NJ tax on the 2025 NJ tax table.
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 illustrated Schedule C net profit 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. The displayed federal components differ by about $900 in 2026 under these stated assumptions, which include claiming none of Anthony's travel as a recreational gambling loss (see the note under Scenario B); that is not a complete-return saving or an election of professional status. (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 can change the complete-return amount and comparison; the NJ category follows the federal classification - see NJ Treatment above.) NJ still allows same-year in-category netting with a zero floor and no cross-category offset. A Category (g) loss has no carryforward: $43,000 on Line 24 is the recreational answer. For a qualifying professional, N.J.A.C. 18:35-1.1 points to Category (b), and a Category (b) loss in a bad year can enter NJ's alternative business calculation, which carries it forward for up to 20 years; for 2026 and later that adjustment is 50% of the business increment at gross income of $500,000 or less, 25% above $500,000 through $1,000,000, and none above $1,000,000 (N.J.S.A. 54A:3-9, as amended by P.L. 2026, c.22). The Division's OBBBA page does not address the federal 90% rule; NJ's own category rules control. (This example sits below the Section 68 threshold - the dollar amount at which the 37% bracket begins, $640,600 single / $768,700 MFJ for 2026, measured on taxable income before subtracting itemized deductions. Above it, an itemizer loses 2/37 of the lesser of total itemized deductions or the excess over the threshold, on top of the 90% cap - see the $700,000 recreational example above.)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be a professional gambler if I have a day job?
Yes. Myers succeeded while also running the trucking business she owned; Castagnetta while driving a truck three days a week. 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. Myers (T.C. Summ. Op. 2007-194) held a full-time $1-slot player was in the trade or business of gambling; Kochevar was decided on the loss limitation, not on status. Expertise is evaluated from the actual business and economic practices and the whole record, not from a categorical slots-versus-poker rule.
Is professional gambler income subject to self-employment tax?
Yes. Net Schedule C profit, after the 92.35% adjustment on Schedule SE, is subject to 15.3% regular SE tax (12.4% Social Security on the first $184,500 of combined wages and net earnings for TY2026 + 2.9% Medicare on all earnings). Form 8959 separately applies the 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax when combined Medicare wages and self-employment income exceed the filing-status threshold; Medicare wages reduce the threshold applied to self-employment income.
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.
Does forming an LLC or S corporation make me a professional gambler?
No. Entity choice and professional status are separate questions, and an entity does not supply the underlying activity facts. The return path depends on the actual taxpayer, entity classification, agreements, payment flow, records, and current form instructions. This page does not prescribe Schedule C, Schedule E, Schedule K-1, an entity, or an election; legal formation and contract questions require independent counsel.
Where can I get help?
Gregory Monaco, CPA may address gambling-tax return treatment and record reconciliation within separately accepted written scopes; this describes offered client work, not formal specialist recognition. Legal classification and matters outside an accepted tax-return scope require the appropriate independent professional.
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 | Tax Resources
Disclaimer: 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.
