- 7 -
Petitioners invoked this Court's jurisdiction by filing a
timely petition for redetermination. After respondent filed her
answer and petitioners filed a reply, petitioners filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment, supported by a memorandum of law, an
affidavit, and several exhibits. Petitioners contend that they
are entitled to summary judgment because:
Petitioner's winnings on the "Wheel of Fortune"
television show were gambling winnings and that,
accordingly, the Petitioner's expenses attributable to
the winnings are aggregable with wagering losses and
deductible pursuant to I.R.C. � 67(b)(3) and I.R.C. �
165(d), not subject to the 2-percent floor on
miscellaneous itemized deductions, up to the amount
that the aggregate amount does not exceed the amount of
gambling winnings. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
Notably, petitioners do not seek summary judgment with respect to
the specific amount of petitioner's purported "wagering losses",
but instead assume erroneously that said issue can be resolved
under Rule 155. In this regard, petitioners' pending motion is
more appropriately characterized as a motion for partial summary
judgment.
Respondent filed an objection to petitioners' motion along
with her own Motion for Summary Judgment. Both documents were
accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law and an affidavit.
The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment were called
for hearing in Washington, D.C. Both parties appeared and
presented argument with respect to the motions. In addition to
appearing at the hearing, petitioners filed a written statement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011