- 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