- 17 -
returns. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs. Mr.
Lenzen testified that he kept the forms given to him by the
casinos when he won money, but he “missed some of them” when he
gave the accountant the information necessary for completing his
tax returns. He kept no records of the losses he sustained. He
admitted that he could have estimated the amounts from bank
statements, but he did not.
In some cases, we have allowed losses based on estimates
where we are convinced a loss was sustained. See Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). There must be
sufficient evidence in the record to prove that a loss was in
fact sustained before we apply the Cohan rule. Polyak v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 337, 345 (1990); Schooler v. Commissioner,
68 T.C. 867, 871 (1977). The Lenzens’ accountant testified that
he reported the figures on the Lenzens’ 1999 return on the basis
of the Lenzens’ oral statements to him and without
substantiation. Mr. Lenzen’s testimony that he has never been a
net winner at the casinos in any year is the only evidence in the
record that the Lenzens sustained gambling losses in addition to
those reported on their return. Mr. Lenzen’s testimony,
uncorroborated by any documentation or even the testimony of Mrs.
Lenzen, does not convince us that a loss was in fact sustained in
1999 and does not provide any details or evidence with which we
might estimate the Lenzens’ additional losses. Therefore, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011