Robert K. and Cheryl Hardwick - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          to the extent of gains from such transactions.  See sec. 165(d);            
          McClanahan v. United States, supra at 632 n.1 (citing Winkler v.            
          United States, 230 F.2d 766 (1st Cir. 1956)).                               
               Taxpayers have the burden of showing that they are entitled            
          to a gambling loss deduction.  Norgaard v. Commissioner, 939 F.2d           
          874, 878 (9th Cir. 1991), affg. in part, revg. in part on another           
          ground T.C. Memo. 1989-390.  Generally, a claimed expense (other            
          than those subjected to heightened scrutiny under section 274)              
          may be deductible even where the taxpayer is unable to fully                
          substantiate it, if there is an evidentiary basis for doing so.             
          Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930);                 
          Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985); Sanford v.            
          Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968), affd. per curiam 412             
          F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax             
          Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).  In these instances,              
          the Court is permitted to make as close an approximation of the             
          allowable expense as it can, bearing heavily against the taxpayer           
          whose inexactitude is of his or her own making.  Cohan v.                   
          Commissioner, supra at 544.                                                 
               Petitioners rely on Doffin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-           
          114, in claiming that the Court should estimate their gambling              
          losses pursuant to the rule of Cohan.  However, this Court has              
          declined to apply the rule of Cohan to gambling loss deduction              
          cases that differ factually from Doffin.  See Donovan v.                    

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

Last modified: March 27, 2008