- 4 -
business].” Id. at 35. Petitioner's gambling activities fall in
the latter categories. His alleged gambling losses, therefore,
are deductible only as a Schedule A itemized deduction. See
Heidelberg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-133.
In order to claim any Schedule A itemized deduction,
petitioner would have to forgo the standard deduction of $3,000.
See sec. 63(a) and (b). Since he claims no itemized deductions,
other than the gambling loss deduction, petitioner’s total amount
of itemized deductions (consisting solely of the gambling loss
deduction) is limited by section 165(d) to the amount of the
gambling income ($858). Under the statutory provisions,
petitioner’s most favorable tax treatment in this case is,
therefore, the one determined by respondent in the statutory
notice of deficiency.
Petitioner contends that Congress could not have intended
this result because it discriminates against low-income taxpayers
who rarely have sufficient deductions to itemize. This result,
however, is directed by the literal language of the statutes
involved as enacted by Congress, and we are bound by that
language. The request for relief that petitioner seeks must be
addressed to Congress and not to the courts.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: May 25, 2011