James F. and Dorothy A. Davis - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
                                       OPINION                                        

               CHIECHI, Judge:  Respondent determined a deficiency in                 
          petitioners’ Federal income tax (tax) for 1997 in the amount of             
          $210,166.                                                                   
               We must determine whether the amount that petitioners                  
          received in exchange for the assignment of their right to receive           
          a portion of certain future annual lottery payments is ordinary             
          income or capital gain.1  We hold that that amount is ordinary              
          income.                                                                     
                                     Background                                       
               This case was submitted fully stipulated.  The facts that              
          have been stipulated are so found except as stated herein.                  
               Petitioners resided in Lake Arrowhead, California, at the              
          time they filed the petition.                                               
               On July 10, 1991, petitioner James F. Davis (Mr. Davis) won            
          $13,580,000 in the California State Lottery’s On-Line LOTTO game            
          (lottery).  Pursuant to certain rules and regulations governing             


               1Petitioners paid and claimed as basis $7,009 in legal fees            
          in connection with the assignment in question (assignment cost).            
          In the notice of deficiency (notice) issued to petitioners for              
          their taxable year 1997, respondent disallowed the assignment               
          cost as basis but determined that cost to be a miscellaneous                
          itemized deduction.  In the petition, petitioners contested                 
          respondent’s determination in the notice with respect to the                
          assignment cost.  On brief, petitioners make no arguments or                
          contentions with respect to that cost.  We conclude that peti-              
          tioners have abandoned contesting respondent’s determination in             
          the notice with respect to the assignment cost.  See Rybak v.               
          Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011