Ohio woman decides to drop appeal over lottery tax

Comment #29

KY Floyd — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:39:03 GMT

libra926 wrote: << It doesn't escape me that in some of your Postings, you are simply playing the 'Devil's Advocate' I don't think even you take everything you are saying, seriously..... >> Maybe it looks like I'm playing Devil's Advocate because I'm taking the minority opinion. I'm not taking it because it's the minority opinion, but because it's the legally correct opinion. Why wouldn't I be serious about it? << Technically Speaking, the prize winner, should not be held... [ More ]

Comment #28

libra926 — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:36:27 GMT

It doesn't escape me that in some of your Postings, you are simply playing the 'Devil's Advocate' I don't think even you take everything you are saying, seriously..... It may not suit your sense of fair play, but everybody should know that life isn't fair. Now, Will the real George Walker Bush please stand up???loololololololololololol

Comment #27

libra926 — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:28:18 GMT

1/22/2006....PLEEEZZEE BRONCOS..BEAT THE STEELERS/ PLEEZZEE PANTHERS..RIP APART THE SEAHAWKS... SPIT OUT THE FEATHERS.......aahhh...that said...1st.....everything 'Melodramatic Extreme' gets my attention....2nd...I, wasn't discussing anything 'illegal'.....I am speaking strictly of winning the Lotto/Lottery and I am staying on subject..I'm not the one out of touch here.3rd....We know that taxes go up down, and even that rich people, who don't need the money, get tax rebates...just look at... [ More ]

Comment #26

RJOh — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:47:23 GMT

That's the problem with taking an annuity, you pay taxes on the money when you get it at the tax rate that exist when you receive it, not when you won it, kinda like a IRA with a deferred tax obligation.

Comment #25

KY Floyd — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:36:45 GMT

Your last line and other poster's references to a retroactive tax indicate some confusion. The tax isn't applied to prior earnings. It's a new tax that's applies to current income. It isn't any different than making interest income from a bank account taxable when it hadn't been previously been taxable. Why would you think you'd be exempt just because you had the bank account before the exemption was eliminated? If the rate on capital gains is reduced, are you going to volunteer to pay the old... [ More ]

Comment #24

KY Floyd — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:30:43 GMT

Melodramatic? You need to check your dictionary. Extreme? It got your atttention, but it sounds like you still haven't figured it out, since it's a reasonable analogy to the tax situation. Laws about all sorts of things change all the time, and with only a few limited exceptions the new laws apply to everybody.You apparently think the idea of being able to continue an activity after it becomes illegal is extreme, but that's absolutley no different than the tax situation. She used to be able to... [ More ]

Comment #23

justxploring — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:27:28 GMT

Well, I guess there's another thing to be happy about besides the weather, since we have no state tax. I guess for now I don't need to think about it because someone else just won the $50 million jackpot and I didn't get a single number. Still..$3 million on Wed will be okay too, but $50 would have been a lot nicer.I agree with libra926 and it doesn't seem fair that a new tax can be applied to prior earnings.

Comment #22

libra926 — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:34:30 GMT

HAPPY SATURDAY... KY ....1/21/2006Some parts of your argument are totally extreme and melodramatic...The tax Laws in each State pertain to 'residency'.....I know here in Maryland that as a resident, I must pay income tax, as it's already factored on the books, and has been so for at least 50 years prior to my birth. It will come as no surprise to me, that should I have the good fortune of winning anything, The 'Comptroller of the Treasury' will be looking for a check in the mail, as soon as they... [ More ]

Comment #21

KY Floyd — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:06:24 GMT

Maybe I'm just stupid, but there are some things I don't understand about everybody's whining. How is a tax that only applies to your current income retroactive? If your city enacts an income tax this year should your income be exempt just because you still have the same job and your source of income hasn't changed? If the tax rate goes up this year should the higher rate only apply to any raise you might get this year, or should it apply to all of oyur taxable income? If you won the lottery 5 y... [ More ]

Comment #20

Chewie — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:12:43 GMT

If they have the same concept as New Jersey, it doesn't matter what the state where you win does about taxes. You win in Powerball, say in Pennsyvania, and live in New Jersey, you are screwed. If you are taking annuity, the state of New Jersey will tax you every single year you receive a check from the state of Pennsyvania. (If you win in NYC, on any lotto, it is even worse. New York State tax, New York City Tax, and New Jersey state tax.) You only get free lottery winnings in New Jersey if... [ More ]

Comment #19

Badger — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:59:43 GMT

I think it's a screw-job by government once again. It's almost a retro-active tax. When she won the lottery, it was 4 years before the govt decided there would be a city tax. She should be exempt. This is govt once again changing the rules in the middle of the game just to suit themselves.

Comment #18

libra926 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:48:19 GMT

HAPPY FRIDAY EVERYONE....1/20/2006This story is certainly a 'real lesson' for me...even though I always understood 'CASH ONLY' and his position for the LUMP SUM PAYOUT.....this will altimately hurt the Annuity side of the game. More people will become savvy about the down side of Annuities, and take the Cash Options or simply stop playing if it's not offered. It means more money payouts for those of us taking the Lump Sum, because we won't have to worry about 'tax law changes'. We will take... [ More ]

Comment #17

DoubleDown — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:43:04 GMT

Happy Friday to you too Libra !!! One thing will never change- the real winner in every lottery payout is the tax man. The tax man loves the lottery and rightly so.....DD

Comment #16

libra926 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:36:47 GMT

HAPPY FRIDAY.....1/20/2006....... JUST However, the issue here is that in this Town in Ohio, at the time of their win, there was absolutely no income tax ..which is simliar to the Laws of Las Vegas, Nevada. These winners should not be affected by the new 'income tax laws' as they won prior to the change....That's why this whole issue 'stinks so much'.....it's just too bad she had to go into Court, losing additional money to fight this issue...she is clearly right, but in AMERICA...TAX IS KING...... [ More ]

Comment #15

libra926 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:28:32 GMT

HAPPY FRIDAY....... DD ...1/20/2006I started to reply to you yesterday.....but was too upset.....Personally...I smell a stinking rip off . That's all this is.... how can they be held accountable????......I have often said, that when we win these prizes we are never alone.... the tax man cometh, everytime .Furthermore, if this can occurr in Ohio, what next....'NEVADA

Comment #14

Coin Toss — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:57:28 GMT

It seems she should have been grandfathered in and lottery winnings after, and only after, the city started taxing them would be collected.The U.S. is the only place where gambling winnings are taxed as far as I know - other places, whatevetr you win is yours.It's illegal to buy an Irish Sweepstakes ticket, but if you win, you have to pay taxes on it.

Comment #13

KY Floyd — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:45:03 GMT

justxploring wrote:<< Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comments, but I'm pretty sure that taxes are based on where you win the money, not where you live. In other words, I live in FL where we have no state income tax. Still, if I drove to GA to buy a MM ticket and won, I'd owe Federal tax and then GA State tax. >>That's almost right. Depending on the applicable laws income may be taxable based on the where the income is generated, and it's definitely taxable based on where you live. For a Florid... [ More ]

Comment #12

KY Floyd — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:33:54 GMT

Do you think it would make much sense to sell a house and pay a commision to a realtor, and then pay moving expenses to save a maximum of $520 a year? Does it make much sense to move out of a city because they have a city income tax and relocate to another city that has a city income tax, as yours apparently does?If her income from the lottery is $26,000 a year before taxes, and it probably stops when her ex-husband dies, I'm guessing she has another source of income, and it's likely to be a job... [ More ]

Comment #11

KY Floyd — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:29:04 GMT

Because ex post facto only applies to criminal charges. Tax laws change every single year, and it doesn't matter whether or not the source of your income changed from previous years. Your income in any given year is taxed based on the rules in effect for that year. If lottery winnings had been exempt from state taxes and the state later eliminated the exemption it might be possible to argue that the tax-free status had been part of the inducement to play the lottery and that adding a tax effect... [ More ]

Comment #10

justxploring — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:26:42 GMT

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comments, but I'm pretty sure that taxes are based on where you win the money, not where you live. In other words, I live in FL where we have no state income tax. Still, if I drove to GA to buy a MM ticket and won, I'd owe Federal tax and then GA State tax. If someone has another educated opinion on this matter, I'd like to hear it. I am assuming if you buy a ticket in a city with city tax, you might also have to pay that too. When I lived in NH (no state tax) a... [ More ]

Comment #9

Chewie — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 02:13:51 GMT

So much for the annuity arguement.

Comment #8

DoubleDown — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:47:18 GMT

Always choose cash option if you have the choice.Get the taxes out of the way and go have some fun

Comment #7

HiYoSilver — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:50:18 GMT

The same thing was done to the early winners in the Michigan Lottery. 10 years after it was started the state changed the law and started taxing the winners. Even those that won in the prior 10 years and were getting annuities.This is my biggest argument against taking an annuity. You never know what the government will do long after you've won. The federal tax could be hiked to 50% and the state could do the same.

Comment #6

DoctorEw220 — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:29:14 GMT

Why didn't they just make the Ex Post Facto argument. In this case, it would mean that because they won the money back before the law was in effect, they shouldn't have to pay city taxes.

Comment #5

DoubleDown — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:07:40 GMT

I agree Libra....Why wouldn't their annuity be grandfathered in and all lottery winners AFTER the new tax went into effect be subject to the ridiculous city tax ?Ya gotta love taxation- it can in essence be retroactive.

Comment #4

libra926 — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:41:31 GMT

HAPPY THURSDAY..... RJ Excuse me, but I don't understand....acccording to the story and the tax law:In 1987 when the Rodepouchs won the lottery, the city of Warren did not tax lottery winnings, Hicks said.Therefore, why wouldn't she and her ex-husband still be exempt from paying income tax on their Lottery Annuity winnings????....Why are they affected by the 'new law'.....

Comment #3

CASH Only — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:03:03 GMT

She also should have never played that game, since it's a lifetime prize. There was no such thing as a cash option in 1987.

Comment #2

tg636 — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:33:28 GMT

Time to pay up and then move, so not only will the city lose the city income tax it will lose sales tax, excise tax and whatever else she was paying. Although 26K a year is not a lot of money. It would be more fun to give the city the finger making a million a year, so they could really smart from the loss.

Comment #1

RJOh — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:24:31 GMT

She should move to my town, it right there on the city tax form, no city taxes on lottery winnings, pensions or interests from savings. I think the people who wrote the code were retired.

Ohio woman decides to drop appeal over lottery tax

Lottery Post — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:30:01 GMT

An Ohio woman who thought she didn't owe city income tax on lottery money she and her ex-husband received has given up her appeals court case.Tina Marie Rodepouch, of Parkman Road Southwest, had filed an appeal with the 11th District Court of Appeals challenging a Warren Municipal Court decision Sept. 20, 2005, saying she had to pay city taxes on the money.But she has dropped that case and will continue to pay the taxes, said Gregory V. Hicks, Warren's law director. She didn't want to spend any... [ More ]