Bill Remos - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          year 1999, petitioner received gambling winnings of $50,000 from            
          a game of blackjack he played at the Grand Victoria Casino.                 
               Respondent received a Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings,            
          for taxable year 1999 from Grand Victoria Casino reporting                  
          gambling winnings paid to petitioner in the amount of $50,000.              
          From this Form W-2G, respondent determined that petitioner had              
          unreported income of $50,000 for taxable year 1999.  Accordingly,           
          respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency for taxable             
          year 1999, in which respondent determined that petitioner had               
          unreported income of $50,000 and that he was liable for a tax               
          deficiency in the amount of $14,339.                                        
               At trial, petitioner claimed that he had documents and other           
          evidence to show that he suffered unreported gambling losses                
          equal to his gambling winnings.  However, he did not possess this           
          evidence at the time of trial.  The Court left the record open              
          and gave petitioner 30 days to present these documents and other            
          support to respondent.  Petitioner did not avail himself of the             
          opportunity to submit this evidence, and on January 13, 2005, the           
          record in this case was closed.                                             
                                     Discussion                                       
               In general, the Commissioner’s determination set forth in a            
          notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears            
          the burden of showing that the determination is in error.  Rule             
          142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  As one               






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011