- 10 -
themselves, these facts do not preclude petitioner from being
engaged in the trade or business of gambling. However, such
factors were considered by the Supreme Court in Groetzinger and
are relevant to our determination. See Commissioner v.
Groetzinger, 480 U.S. at 24-25, 35-36. We find that these facts
weigh against petitioner’s being engaged in the trade or business
of gambling. See Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-393.
Taking into consideration all of the above, we find
petitioner was not engaged in the trade or business of gambling
in 2002. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to report his
gambling activity on Schedule C. Instead, petitioner must claim
his gambling losses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A, as
determined by respondent. We sustain respondent’s determination
that the amount of tax required to be shown on petitioner’s 2002
Federal income tax return was $40,399, resulting in a deficiency
of $17,096.
II. Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Section 6662(a)
Respondent determined petitioner is liable for an accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662(a) for 2002 of $3,419.
Petitioner argues he is not liable for an accuracy-related
penalty because he reasonably relied upon the advice of his
accountant.
Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty in the amount of 20
percent of the portion of the underpayment to which section 6662
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011