The House Ways and Means Committee has voted overwhelmingly (38-5) to advance a wider tax bill containing a proposed fix that would restore gamblers' ability to deduct 100% of their losses against winnings.
Under a provision in last year's Big Beautiful Bill, only 90% of those losses are deductible, meaning that poker players could end up owing tax without generating any income.
It's not law yet – further action in Congress is still required – but Wednesday's vote represents a significant step forward.
If the measure becomes law, the good news is that the 90% cap on gambling losses would be repealed retroactively to January 1, 2026.
Rep. Steven Horsford and Rep. Max Miller unveiled the bipartisan FULL HOUSE Act in January. Horsford posted a statement on his X account after it passed in committee on Wednesday, writing, "I will keep working until this gets passed into law. No one deserves to pay taxes on income they never earned."
What happens next?
There isn't much time to get the gambling tax fix passed in 2026.
The House has now adjourned until after the November 3 midterm elections, leaving little time to get the measure through Congress. If it isn't passed before the current Congress ends in January, the legislative process would need to start again.
The bill would need to pass both the full House and Senate, with both chambers agreeing on identical text before it could go to President Trump for his signature.
Horsford was bullish, saying, "I feel very good about our prospects of getting this across the finishing line, one because it's unfair and everyone understands you should not be taxed on money you did not make, and two, it's bad for jobs and our economy in Nevada and in other gaming jurisdictions across the country."
However, a market on Kalshi – 'Will the cap on gambling loss reduction be repealed?' – only gives it a 30% chance of being repealed before 2027.
Who voted against it?
Five members voted against the wider bill. And that led to some poker players demanding answers from them as to why they'd vote against something that seems like common sense.
Daniel Negreanu wrote: "The 5 no votes should be forced to explain their logic here and why they think it’s fair and appropriate for people to pay tax when they didn’t make any income."
He ended his post with a short demand: "Explain yourself."
Josh Arieh posted something similar, asking, "Imagine being ignorant enough to vote “no” on this. Please explain yourself!"
However, as Horsford pointed out on VSiN’s Follow the Money show, "This was part of a larger digital assets tax bill that I also brought forward. I was able to negotiate the inclusion of the FH Act in it, and the issues that some of the members had were around the digital asset tax bill, not necessarily against the Full House Act."
Feature image created using AI.
