Has the IRS Changed the Definition of a Gambling "Session?"

Around the end of the year, with the new tax law coming into effect, I heard some chatter about a potential bright spot -- that the definition of a "session" for IRS purposes might be legally defined as being broader, maybe even to the point of all of a taxpayer's play at one casino (or even a group of casinos owned by the same entity) being considered one session. I believe Bob Dancer wrote a column to this effect. I haven't heard anything about this more recently. What's the status of that theory?

The answer is no, the IRS hasn't officially broadened the definition of a gambling "session" for tax purposes.

The chatter you mention — suggesting that all play at one casino (or even casinos owned by the same company) could count as a single session — appear to stem from speculation by some tax professionals in response to other changes in the tax law vis a vis gambling, but they're not supported by any IRS guidance, regulations, or court rulings, at least that we know of.

The big 2025 legislative change, effective for tax years beginning in 2026, capped gambling-loss deductions at 90% of winnings. This has increased the importance of accurate session-level netting and recordkeeping, which is likely where the rumors originated. Some pundits speculated that a broader “establishment-based” or even year-long session might help minimize the impact of the 90% cap.

However, that appears to be wishful thinking. The IRS hasn't adopted or endorsed any such broadening and no new procedures, notices, or regulations have been issued.

Thus, you still need detailed contemporaneous records of winning and losing sessions. W-2Gs, now with a higher $2,000 threshold for 2026, report specific jackpots, but your return should reflect actual session results. If you itemize and deduct (90% of) losses against winnings on Schedule A, you should log each session’s net win/loss and keep casino statements, tickets, receipts, etc. Poor records can lead to full disallowance of losses on audit.

For a full treatment of what the IRS considers a gambling session, see our book Tax Help for Gamblers.

No part of this answer may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher.

Have a question that hasn't been answered? Email us with your suggestion.

Missed a Question of the Day?

Have a Question?

Tomorrow's Question

Didn't Reno have a professional basketball team named the Bighorns, like the Las Vegas Bighorns?

Comments

David Miller Apr-07-2026

Taxing Gamblers is Just Wrong

 I do believe that I am not alone with thinking that taxing gambling wins/losses should be eliminated. Every year the guidelines seem to change, with the onus placed on the individuals to "prove" their wins/losses - which is where the IRS likes to focus and find ways to penalize gamblers. Other than the turmoil caused by the unclear, hard to adhere to guidelines, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers. It is bad enough that gamblers are at a disadvantage with every bet they make, they then - when they are lucky enough to win - then have the IRS reaping a large percentage of the "winnings" right off of the top of whatever one did win. Gambling should be tax free. I am sure that there are those who will oppose what I say here - but I know that millions of gamblers would love to see no taxes on gambling.

Susan Johnson Apr-07-2026

update all

As is the problem with many laws, they are not set up to keep up and change with inflation.

STEVEN CHOLITY Apr-07-2026

Which is it?

Paragraph 3 - “…for tax years beginning in 2026, capped gambling-loss deductions at 90% of winnings.”

Paragraph 5 - “ If you itemize and deduct (90% of) losses against winnings…”

If it’s the latter, this new law would seem to impact a relatively small percentage of filers.  I personally don’t have many years where 90% of my losses are less than my winnings.

I’ve seen this confusion in many published articles but did not expect it here.

O2bnVegas Apr-07-2026

It's all about income

Check me on this:

In 2025 you could keep from having your W-2G winnings from being added to your AGI by declaring losses UP TO the amount of winnings. Nothing beyond, no matter how many casinos you lost at through the year.  No session crap. I just went through this.  Had a zillion in documented $$ losses, but only could claim up to total W-2Gs.

Example: Total W-2G winnings $1000 (for simplicity)

Loss I could claim in 2025=$1000
Taxable GAMBLING income=$0.00

Loss I can claim in 2026=$900 (90% of $1000, is that right?)
The remaining 10%, which is $100, is taxable, and adds to my AGI.

BUT, other things determine the bottom line taxable income (other deductions, withholding etc).  Having Fed taxes withheld from W-2G at time of winning helps if you worry about having too much taxable income.  Or don't worry about it and pay at tax time.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Don't have me do your taxes!

Candy

STEVEN CHOLITY Apr-07-2026

Clarification

I guess my entire point is that even in this QOD the limitation is quoted as 90% of winnings and then two paragraphs later as 90% of losses.  It’s one or the other.  It can’t be both.

O2bnVegas Apr-08-2026

For STEVEN

It is "both". 

IRS counts winnings (the WIN) as income.  Without the benefit of the allowed "Gambling LOSS Deductible", the total taxable income would increase by the total winnings (the WIN), increasing that year's tax burden and possibly bumping the taxpayer up to the higher tax bracket.  

The deductable amt (LOSS) from the winnings amt (WIN) was "up to" 100% of the WIN amount, essentially zero-ing out your gambling winnings (WIN).  Taxpayer won $1000; showed loss of $1000; deductable was "up to" $1000 = zero gambling WIN added to total taxable income.

Now, same win, $1000; shown loss, $1000; BUT deduction is now limited to 90%, or $900.00, leaving $100 taxable. Total taxable income is now $100.00 higher than it would have been last year. Maybe higher tax bill/higher tax bracket.

Question of the Day - 07 April 2026

Comments