- 14 -
support of their claim that they incurred gambling losses at
Harrah’s during 2000.11
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of
establishing that they are entitled for each of the years at
issue to a gambling loss deduction in excess of the deduction
allowed by respondent for each such year.
Accuracy-Related Penalty
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for each
of the years at issue for the accuracy-related penalty under
section 6662(a) because of negligence or disregard of rules or
regulations under section 6662(b)(1).
The term “negligence” in section 6662(b)(1) includes any
failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the Code.
Sec. 6662(c). Negligence has also been defined as a failure to
do what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances.
11Assuming arguendo that petitioners had carried their
burden of proof with respect to their claim that they had gam-
bling losses for each year at issue in excess of the gambling
losses allowed by respondent for each such year, on the record
before us, we find that petitioners have failed to provide
sufficient evidence on which the Court would be able to make an
estimate of the total amount of gambling losses sustained for
each such year. Cf. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544
(2d Cir. 1930). In this connection, we note that we find the
cases on which petitioners rely here and in which the Court
relied on Cohan to estimate the amount of gambling losses sus-
tained in each such case to be materially distinguishable from
the instant case and their reliance on those cases to be mis-
placed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011