- 12 -
“gambling winnings”. We do not read those opinions, however, to
suggest that “winnings” is the only meaning for the word “gains”.
Section 165(d) refers to “gains”, not “winnings”. The word
“gains” is broader than the word “winnings”. Not only does the
word “gains” include “winnings”, it also includes an “increase in
wealth”. Webster's New World Dictionary, supra at 551. If the
Congress had wanted to limit the income prong of section 165(d)
to gambling winnings, it would have said so. Instead, the
Congress used the word “gains”, and, in so doing, allowed
taxpayers to offset their gambling losses against increases to
their wealth that arose out of their wagering transactions.
Given the clarity of section 165(d), the beginning and end of our
inquiry is the statutory text, and we apply the plain and common
meaning of that text. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978); United
States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S. 534,
543-544 (1940). As we have learned from the Supreme Court,
“courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it
means and means in a statute what it says there. * * * When the
words of a statute are unambiguous, * * * judicial inquiry is
complete.” Connecticut Natl. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249,
253-254 (1992); citations and quotation marks omitted.
We recognize the narrow interpretation that this and other
Courts have given the income prong of section 165(d). See, e.g.,
Allen v. United States, 976 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1992); Boyd v.
United States, 762 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir. 1985); Bevers v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011