Robert Libutti - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         

          Trump Plaza Associates cannot be treated as 'gains from wagering            
          transactions' pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 165(d)."            
                                     Discussion                                       
               Legal gambling is a multi-billion-dollar industry that has             
          proliferated across the country and has become a major source of            
          adult entertainment.  In an effort to attract the attention of              
          patrons, gaming establishments routinely offer comps.  In the               
          instant case, Trump paid more than $2.5 million in comps to                 
          petitioner during the subject years.  The term "comps" is                   
          generally understood to imply "free of charge".  Common sense,              
          however, makes one strongly suspicious as to whether the comps              
          received by petitioner were free of charge.  If there is any                
          truth to the time-tested adage that there is "no free lunch", one           
          can hardly be surprised that respondent argues that petitioner's            
          comps are taxable to him.                                                   
               Petitioner reported the subject comps as gross income on his           
          1987 through 1989 Federal income tax returns (including the                 
          amendment to his 1987 return).  Petitioner argues that the comps            
          are not taxable to him because they are wagering gains which may            
          be offset by his larger wagering losses.8  See sec. 165(d).                 
          Respondent asserts that the comps are not wagering gains because            
          they do not have a "strong nexus" to petitioner's wagering                  


               8 Petitioner also makes alternative arguments that the comps           
          are not income.  For purposes of deciding the sec. 165(d) issue,            
          we will assume that the comps are properly includable in gross              
          income.                                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011