- 9 -
See Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd.
without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981). Given
the facts and circumstances in this case, we find that
petitioner’s gambling activity in 2003 was not a trade or
business. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503
U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioner did not carry on his video poker activity in a
businesslike manner. See sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
He did not maintain adequate books or records, instead relying on
casino records to track his wins and losses from the activity,
even though he was aware that there was a threshold amount below
which amounts were not reported.
Although petitioner expended a great deal of time and effort
engaged in his gambling activity, spending more than 1,000 hours
gambling in 2003, see sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs., he
did not seek additional assistance with or adjust his gaming
strategy, even when it became apparent that he never had a
winning year, see sec. 1.183-2(b)(2), (6), Income Tax Regs.
We are additionally unconvinced that petitioner’s gambling
activity meets the standard for being a trade or business because
we are not persuaded that an individual who gambles against a
machine that is programmed by a casino can have, as his or her
primary purpose, income or profit. After all, such a machine is
on the floor to make money for the casino and is not there to
provide income or profit for the casino’s patrons. For most
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011