Rep. Dina Titus Advocates for Full Restoration of Gambling Loss Deductions Despite Recent Setbacks
Rep. Dina Titus, a Democrat from Nevada, remains steadfast in her quest to reinstate the full federal deduction for gambling losses, even after her recent proposal was dismissed by the House Rules Committee.
This week, the committee denied Titus’s latest attempt to fully restore gambling loss tax deductions, limiting them to 90%—a significant reduction initiated during the Trump administration. The legislator initially presented the Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act (FAIR BET Act) in response to this change, highlighting its financial implications for gamblers. This bill is currently under consideration in the House Ways and Means Committee, where it awaits further action.
In a strategic move, Titus tried to attach the FAIR BET Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in August. However, this proposal was turned down by the Republican-led Rules Committee. The amendment aimed to eliminate the 90% cap on gambling loss deductions in the Internal Revenue Code, restoring it to its original 100% allowance.
Following this setback, Titus took to social media to express her disappointment but remained committed to garnering support for the measure. “Unfortunately, the GOP-controlled Rules Committee did not accept the FAIR BET Act as an amendment to the NDAA. This was an easy fix that should have been adopted. Nonetheless, I will continue to build support to restore the 100% gambling loss deduction,” she stated.
Joining her in advocating for restored tax relief for gamblers are other lawmakers, including Kentucky Republican Rep. Andy Barr, who introduced the Winnings and Gains Expense Restoration Act (WAGER Act) in July, and Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, who filed the Facilitating Unbiased Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act (FULL HOUSE Act). However, both bills have yet to see any substantial movement.
The Legislative Landscape of Gambling Tax Deductions
The reduction of gambling loss deductions was part of a broader budget proposal during the Trump administration, affecting how gamblers report their winnings and losses. The current stipulation means that individuals could be liable for taxes even if their losses balance out their gains. According to predictions, this tax change could potentially generate around $1.1 billion in revenue over the next eight years.
Titus has a track record in combating unfavorable gambling tax policies; she previously attempted to amend the related tax changes during the passage of a significant budget bill. Despite her efforts, the legislation moved forward without any adjustments, and the amendments were not incorporated. This tax change is set to take effect in 2026.
Interestingly, some members of the Senate Finance Committee, including Republican senators Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn, reported that they were unaware of the deduction modification during the discussions surrounding the budget.
A Long History of Advocacy
Titus’s involvement in gambling taxation issues isn’t a novel development. Since 2014, she has actively sought the repeal of the federal sports betting excise tax, a longstanding tax levying 0.25% on all sports wagers across the country. She advocates that this tax unjustly penalizes legal operators while benefiting illegal sportsbooks that evade these costs.
When introducing her recent bill, the Discriminatory Gaming Tax Repeal Act of 2025, Titus emphasized, “This tax does nothing but harm legal gaming operators, who contribute to job creation in Nevada and other states. Illegal sportsbooks do not carry this financial burden, which gives them an unfair advantage.”
In addition to her focus on tax reform, Titus has also raised concerns about prediction markets, advocating for a balanced regulatory approach that accounts for the evolving landscape of gambling in America.
Through her unwavering commitment, Rep. Dina Titus continues to be a key voice in the effort to reform gambling taxation, highlighting both the economic impacts and the need for fair treatment of legal operators as states navigate the complexities of gambling legislation.