James Castagnetta - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
          decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and            
          this opinion should not be cited as authority.                              
               Respondent determined a deficiency of $863 in petitioner’s             
          2001 Federal income tax.1  The issue for decision is whether                
          petitioner’s gambling activity constituted a trade or business              
          during the taxable year in issue.                                           
          Background                                                                  
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          Petitioner was not married and had no children during, or as of             
          the close of, the year in issue.  At the time the petition was              
          filed in this case, petitioner resided in Mt. Kisco, New York.              
               Petitioner is a college graduate with a bachelor’s degree in           
          economics.  He lives with a roommate in a rented condominium and            
          describes his lifestyle as “modest”.                                        
               During 2001, petitioner was employed, part time, as a truck            
          driver delivering produce to area restaurants.  Typically, he               
          worked on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday, 5 a.m. to noon.  He was              
          not paid for holidays or vacations and his 2001 wages from his              
          part-time employment totaled $17,785.                                       
               Petitioner became interested in horseracing at an early age.           
          One of his relatives introduced him to handicapping horseraces.             
          He has been handicapping horseraces in some capacity for more               


               1  The amount in the notice of deficiency was incorrectly              
          computed to be $683.  The parties stipulate that the correct                
          calculation of the proposed deficiency is $863.                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011