- 6 -
In this case, petitioner’s visits to the casino were not
continuous or regular. Petitioner points to the total number of
hours he spent at the casino over the course of the year, and
argues that he averaged 20 hours per week gambling. However, his
visits to the casino throughout the year were very sporadic. The
number of monthly visits rose as high as 17 in October, but in
December he made no visits and in several other months he made
only 2 or 3. Petitioner also argues that the amount of time he
spent in his antique sales business is similar to the amount of
time he spent in the gambling activity.2 The aggregate amount of
time spent in the activity is not as determinative as the fact
that petitioner had little continuity or regularity to his
visits. Finally, petitioner argues that the sporadic nature of
his gambling was dictated by his knowledge of “how the machines
were cycling or if the machines were being adjusted to reduce
players odds.” We do not accept this argument, both because it
is not supported by any evidence and because we do not find it
plausible that petitioner had knowledge of when the video poker
machines were producing higher payoffs which was sufficiently
accurate or specific to dictate when he should visit the casino.
The primary purpose of petitioner’s gambling activity was
for amusement, not for profit: His activity, although
2Respondent has not challenged petitioner’s deduction of the
loss from the antiques business, so we need not address the
accuracy of petitioner’s treatment of the activity as a business.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011