-13-
the calculation was based on a day of very active wagering on
conference championship games. Id. We reject petitioners’
argument. The 4 days of seized wagering records are an accurate
reflection of Mr. Paterson’s wagering activity and can be used to
redetermine Mr. Paterson’s income for the years at issue. None
of the 4 days involved high profile conference championship games
like those related to the day of wagering records in Clayton.
Moreover, the 4 days of wagering records did not include a
Saturday, which is generally a high-volume day, but included a
partial day of wagering as the search occurred before that day’s
wagering was complete. These facts would actually tend to
underestimate Mr. Paterson’s income. Simply underestimating the
income does not make the method unreliable.
Third, petitioners argue that the 4 days of wagering records
are inaccurate because some of the wagers were never consummated
because of Mr. Paterson’s arrest. This fact is irrelevant.
Before the search, Mr. Paterson was engaged in his normal
bookmaking activities and would have collected the wagers absent
the search and his arrest. Moreover, the unconsummated wagers
and the raid occurred in 1999, not 1997 or 1998, the years at
issue, where the bookmaking activities occurred without
interruption. We conclude the 4 days of wagering records are an
accurate reflection of Mr. Paterson’s wagering activity even if
some wagers were never consummated.
Finally, petitioners argue that the profit factor method
disregards Mr. Paterson’s actual losses and that the 4.54-percent
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007