- 13 -
Commissioner, 26 T.C. 1218 (1956). Our opinion does not depart
from this view. None of the prior cases dealt with the specific
facts at hand; namely, a gambler who received comps to induce him
to gamble. The cases dealt mostly with taxpayers who worked in
gambling establishments, as opposed to placing bets in wagering
transactions there, and who received compensation that was
different than ordinary pay. In Boyd v. United States, supra,
for example, the taxpayer was a professional poker player who
managed a casino's poker room. The casino did not participate in
the poker games, but it earned money on the games by renting its
facilities to the players for a fee. The taxpayer played in the
games to attract customers, and he received a portion of the fee.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the
taxpayer's portions of the fees were not gains from wagering
transactions under section 165(d). The Court of Appeals found
controlling that the fees were a form of rental and were not
derived directly from wagering transactions entered into by the
taxpayer himself. Id. at 1373. Similarly, in Bevers v.
Commissioner, supra, this Court faced the question of whether
former section 165(d) allowed a dealer to offset his tips against
his gambling losses. The Court held that it did not. According
to the Court, the dealer’s tips were gains from his labor as a
dealer, because the tips came to him in his employment as a
dealer. Id. at 1220-1221. Once again, the dealer did not
himself place the bet in the wagering transactions; rather, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011