- 5 - the question whether a full-time gambler who gambled solely for his own account was engaged in a trade or business, stated: to be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with continuity and regularity and * * * the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit. A sporadic activity, a hobby, or an amusement diversion does not qualify. * * * we conclude that if one’s gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business within the meaning of the statutes with which we are here concerned. Respondent Groetzinger satisfied that test in 1978. Constant and large-scale effort on his part was made. Skill was required and was applied. He did what he did for a livelihood, though with a less-than-successful result. This was not a hobby or a passing fancy or an occasional bet for amusement. Id. at 35-36. After his employer terminated his position in February 1978, the taxpayer in Groetzinger devoted the remainder of the year to parimutuel wagering, primarily on greyhound races. During this time, he spent 6 days a week for 48 weeks at the track and spent a substantial amount of time studying racing forms, programs, and other materials. In all, he devoted 60 to 80 hours each week to gambling-related activities. After February, he had no employment or profession other than gambling. He received $6,498 in non-gambling income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and salary earned prior to termination.1 1That the taxpayer in Groetzinger gambled “with a view to earning a living from such activity” was not disputed by the Commissioner. See Groetzinger v. Commissioner, supra at 24 n.2 (quoting Groetzinger v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 793, 795 (1984)).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011