Eldron U. Erbs - Page 7




                                        - 6 -                                         
               In this case, petitioner’s visits to the casino were not               
          continuous or regular.  Petitioner points to the total number of            
          hours he spent at the casino over the course of the year, and               
          argues that he averaged 20 hours per week gambling.  However, his           
          visits to the casino throughout the year were very sporadic.  The           
          number of monthly visits rose as high as 17 in October, but in              
          December he made no visits and in several other months he made              
          only 2 or 3.  Petitioner also argues that the amount of time he             
          spent in his antique sales business is similar to the amount of             
          time he spent in the gambling activity.2  The aggregate amount of           
          time spent in the activity is not as determinative as the fact              
          that petitioner had little continuity or regularity to his                  
          visits.  Finally, petitioner argues that the sporadic nature of             
          his gambling was dictated by his knowledge of “how the machines             
          were cycling or if the machines were being adjusted to reduce               
          players odds.”  We do not accept this argument, both because it             
          is not supported by any evidence and because we do not find it              
          plausible that petitioner had knowledge of when the video poker             
          machines were producing higher payoffs which was sufficiently               
          accurate or specific to dictate when he should visit the casino.            
               The primary purpose of petitioner’s gambling activity was              
          for amusement, not for profit:  His activity, although                      


          2Respondent has not challenged petitioner’s deduction of the                
          loss from the antiques business, so we need not address the                 
          accuracy of petitioner’s treatment of the activity as a business.           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011