- 28 -
Plumbing Co. v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 702 (1971); Wheeler
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-208.
The second factual question is whether Mrs. Winkler
purchased the winning Lotto ticket on behalf of the pre-
existing family partnership. Courts typically focus on
the facts and circumstances surrounding the purchase of a
lottery ticket, including the intent and understanding of
the parties at the time of purchase, to determine ownership
of the proceeds of the ticket for income tax purposes.
See, e.g., Tavares v. Commissioner, 275 F.2d 369 (1st Cir.
1960), affg. 32 T.C. 591 (1959); Schultz v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1977-67; Dowling v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1959-169; Chelius v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1958-29. For
example, where a taxpayer purchases a lottery ticket with
the intent and understanding that the proceeds will be
shared with one or more other persons, the courts have
treated the proceeds of the ticket as income to the
recipients rather than as income to the purchaser. Solomon
v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 936 (1956); Huntington v.
Commissioner, 35 B.T.A. 835 (1937); Droge v. Commissioner,
35 B.T.A. 829 (1937); Dowling v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1959-169; Chelius v. Commissioner, supra. This is true
even though the agreement to divide proceeds is void and
unenforceable. Tavares v. Commissioner, supra; Dowling
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011