- 5 -
deductions, she may not deduct any gambling losses. See Torpie
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-168.
Petitioner credibly testified, and we have so found, that
her gambling losses exceeded her gambling winnings in 2003.
However, because petitioner was not engaged in the trade or
business of gambling, she would have to forgo the standard
deduction to deduct her gambling losses as an itemized deduction.
See sec. 63(a) and (b); Torpie v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner’s standard deduction ($7,000) exceeds her potential
itemized deduction for gambling losses ($2,800).4 Thus,
petitioner’s election to take the standard deduction resulted in
a larger deduction than had she taken an itemized deduction for
her gambling losses. Because petitioner elected to take the
standard deduction, we hold that she cannot take an itemized
deduction for her gambling losses to offset her gambling
winnings. See sec. 63(a) and (b); Torpie v. Commissioner, supra.
The final issue for decision is whether any portion of
petitioner’s Social Security disability benefits are includable
in her gross income for 2003. Respondent determined that $914 of
petitioner’s benefits are so included.
Section 86(a) requires the inclusion of a portion of Social
Security benefits in gross income when the sum of the taxpayer’s
4 Petitioner presented no evidence that she was entitled to
other itemized deductions beyond that for her gambling losses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011