EDWARD D. HAMILTON AND YOLONDA B. HAMILTON - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          rental real estate activity and who may otherwise deduct up to              
          $25,000 of a rental real estate loss, see sec. 469(i)(1) and (2),           
          must reduce that $25,000 figure by 50 percent of the amount by              
          which their adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, see sec.                
          469(i)(3).  We understand petitioners to be making three                    
          arguments in support of their claim that respondent’s                       
          determination is wrong.  First, petitioners argue that their                
          lottery winnings are not includable in their 2000 gross income              
          because they are neither professional nor part-time gamblers.               
          Second, petitioners argue that their lottery winnings are not               
          includable in their adjusted gross income for purposes of section           
          469(i)(3).  Third, petitioners argue that, if their first two               
          arguments are wrong, the Court should recognize that they are in            
          a tight financial bind and apply equitable principles to allow              
          them to deduct at least half of their rental real estate loss.              
               We disagree with petitioners’ first argument that their 2000           
          gross income does not include their lottery winnings.  The wide             
          reach of section 61(a) brings within a taxpayer’s gross income              
          all accessions to wealth, United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229,             
          233 (1992), and an accession to wealth on account of gambling               
          winnings is no exception, see, e.g., Lyszkowski v. Commissioner,            
          T.C. Memo. 1995-235 (and cases cited therein), affd. without                
          published opinion 79 F.3d 1138 (3d Cir. 1996).  Contrary to                 
          petitioners’ claim, an accession to wealth on account of gambling           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011