The FULL HOUSE Act amends section 165(d) of the Internal Revenue Code to restrict deductions for losses from wagering transactions so they may be claimed only to the extent of gains from those same wagering transactions. The statutory text also treats “losses from wagering transactions” as including any deduction otherwise allowable under the Code that is incurred in carrying on a wagering transaction.
That change narrows the scope of deductible wagering-related losses and pulls a broad set of expenses into the loss limitation. Practically, professional bettors, gambling syndicates, promoters and tax preparers will need to re-evaluate how they classify and document wagering income and related deductions, and the IRS gains a clearer statutory basis to disallow deductions that exceed gambling wins.
The rule takes effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces current language in IRC §165(d) to allow wagering losses only up to the amount of wagering gains. It further specifies that any deduction otherwise allowable that is incurred in carrying on wagering transactions counts as a wagering loss for purposes of that limitation.
Who It Affects
The provision targets taxpayers who report wagering income and related deductions—individual professional gamblers, betting syndicates, promoters, and entities that incur expenses in conducting wagering activity—as well as tax preparers and payroll/finance teams at gambling-related businesses.
Why It Matters
By folding a wide range of deductible expenses into the wagering-loss cap, the bill narrows tax planning options that previously reduced taxable income with wagering-related deductions and gives the IRS a straightforward statutory tool to challenge claims that exceed wins.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FULL HOUSE Act rewrites section 165(d) so that tax deductions tied to gambling activity can only offset gambling gains. The statute now says losses from wagering transactions are allowed only to the extent of gains from those transactions, and it explicitly counts any otherwise-allowable deduction incurred while carrying on wagering as part of those losses.
In short, expenses that relate to wagering—travel to events, subscription services used for betting, fees paid to agents or syndicate costs—are swept into the wagering-loss bucket and cannot be used to create a net tax loss that reduces other forms of income.
The change forces taxpayers to segregate wagering results and associated costs. Taxpayers who routinely claimed business-style deductions tied to gambling activity will have to show gains from wagering to support any offsetting deductions.
The bill does not create a separate carryforward or alternative treatment for disallowed wagering expenses; the text simply limits deductions to the extent of wagering gains in the taxable year.From a compliance standpoint, the amendment simplifies the statute the IRS enforces but complicates taxpayer recordkeeping. Preparers will need to separate wagering-related deductions from other business expenses, and taxpayers should expect more focused audits where large wagering-related deductions appear without corresponding wagering gains.
The provision becomes effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, so affected taxpayers and advisers should plan for the change in the next filing cycle.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the text of Internal Revenue Code §165(d) with a rule that wagering losses are deductible only to the extent of gains from wagering transactions.
The statute expressly treats "losses from wagering transactions" as including any otherwise-allowable deduction incurred in carrying on wagering transactions, bringing a broad set of expenses under the cap.
The limitation applies on its face to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The draft uses the term "wagering transactions" but does not define that term, leaving scope questions (for example, what activities and expenses qualify) to interpretation.
The amendment is narrowly framed as an IRC text change—there is no separate provision in the bill for carryforwards, special treatment, or procedural rules for documenting or allocating these deductions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act's name as the "Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy (FULL HOUSE) Act." This is a formal label only; it does not affect substantive tax rules but will appear in legislative and regulatory references to the amendment.
Amendment to Internal Revenue Code §165(d): Wagering-loss limitation
Substitutes new statutory language for §165(d). The operative sentence bars deductions for wagering losses beyond the amount of wagering gains and explicitly captures "any deduction otherwise allowable" that is "incurred in carrying on any wagering transaction." Practically, that clause pulls expenses typically claimed under other sections of the Code—such as ordinary and necessary business expenses—into the scope of the wagering-loss rule when they arise from wagering activity.
Effective date
States that the amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. That timing creates a defined start date for the new restriction and gives taxpayers and advisers a window to adjust reporting and compliance practices before the rule applies to a full tax year.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Department of the Treasury / IRS — Gains a clearer statutory basis to disallow deductions that exceed gambling gains, simplifying audit positions and likely improving revenue collection where wagering deductions were used to shelter other income.
- Regulated gaming operators — Indirectly benefit because the rule reduces opportunities for competitors or associated actors to use tax deductions to create artificial net losses that mask true profitability.
- Tax compliance teams at non-gambling businesses — Receive a clearer line (statutory text) for when expenses tied directly to wagering must be treated as wagering losses, which can simplify internal tax policy for subsidiaries or divisions that engage in betting-related activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Professional gamblers and betting syndicates — Will no longer be able to deduct wagering-related expenses beyond the limit of their wagering gains, reducing after-tax income for those with substantial outlays relative to wins.
- Tax preparers and accounting firms serving gambling clients — Face increased compliance work to segregate wagering-related expenses, substantiate gains, and advise on alternative tax strategies.
- Entities that incur incidental wagering-related costs (promoters, travel/concierge services for bettors) — May find expenses recharacterized as wagering losses subject to the cap, limiting their ability to deduct those costs against non-wagering income.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preventing tax sheltering via wagering-related deductions and treating genuine wagering activity as a business: the statute clamps down on deductions to curb abuse, but the same clamp can penalize taxpayers who incur legitimate, businesslike wagering expenses—leaving policymakers and courts to decide where to draw the line.
The bill is concise but raises concrete implementation questions. It expands the notion of "wagering losses" to include "any deduction otherwise allowable" incurred in carrying on wagering, yet it leaves key terms—especially "wagering transactions" and "carrying on"—undefined.
That creates scope disputes: do travel and lodging for a bettor count; what about advertising for a betting syndicate; or fees paid to analysts and tip services? Those lines matter for determining whether expenses remain deductible against other business income or are swept into the wagering cap.
Another tension concerns performers of wagering as a bona fide trade or business. The rule treats all wagering-related deductions as part of wagering losses, but it does not address whether a sustained, businesslike gambling operation should receive the same business-expense treatment as other trades.
The lack of a carryforward or alternate relief for disallowed wagering expenses means that taxpayers with heavy up-front costs but modest wins in a given year could permanently lose deductions unless other Code provisions apply. Finally, because the amendment is federal, it may create mismatches with state tax regimes and lead to additional complexity for multistate taxpayers, partnerships, and pass-through entities that must allocate income and deductions under varying rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.