TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mark LeRoy Cameron
Docket Number: 2245-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/28/2010
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 ALAN A . & MARY E . SJOBERG, Petitioners, v . ) Docket No . 3733-09 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to .Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before Judge Laurence J . Whalen at St . Paul, Minnesota, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered on April 15, 2010 . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Laurence J . Whalen Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . May 28, 2010 SERVED JUN - 2 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Laurence J . Whale n Alan A . & Mary E . Sjoberg , Docket 3733-09S April 15, 201 0 I . The Court has decided to render ora l findings of fact andopinion in this case, and th e following represents the Court's oral findings of fac t and opinion . II . This case was heard as a small tax cas e pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of th e Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule s 170 through 175, of the Tax Court Rules of Practic e and Procedure . Hereinafter, all section numbers refer t o the Internal Revenue, Code, as amended, and all Rul e references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure . III . This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e authority granted by[section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . IV . Mr . Alan A . Sjoberg appeared in thes e proceedings on his own behalf and on behalf of Mary E . Sjoberg . Ms . Lisa R . Woods, Attorney at Law, appeare d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 on behalf of respondent . 2 V . 3 Respondent determined a deficiency i n 4 petitioners ' 2006 income tax in the amount of $555 . 5 One of the adjustments to petitioners ' return that was 6 made by respondent in the notice was to increas e 7 petitioners ' income by $2,000 by reason of the fact 8 that Mrs . Sjoberg had received $2,000 in gambling 9 winnings from the Grand Casino Hinckley during the 10 year which was not reported on petitioners' joint 11 income tax return . This is the only adjustment to 12 which petitioners take issue in these proceedings . 13 VI . 14 Petitioners acknowledge that Mrs . Sjoberg 15 received $2,000 in gambling winnings during taxable 16 year 2006 that was not reported on their joint return . 17 They raise no issue with the computation of th e 18 deficiency . 19 VII . 20 The reason for petitioners ' disagreemen t 21 with the subject notice of deficiency involves various 22 policy issues concerning the tax treatment of gambling 23 winnings . The petition states as follows : 24 "I disagree with the instructions relating 25 to the reporting and computation of tax related to Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 gambling winnings . 2 "1 . The definition of winnings results in 3 inconsistencies . 4 "2 . The application of gambling winnings 5 and losses don't conform to normally accepte d 6 accounting principles . 7 "3 . When using the standard deducting and 8 reporting S .S . [social security] income, there [sic] 9 results in double taxation . " 10 At trial, Mr . Sjoberg complained about the 11 "instructions" for the reporting of gambling winnings . 12 He said, as written, the instructions require an y 13 winnings to be reported as gambling winnings . There 14 are no minimums . According to Mr . Sjoberg, the 15 instructions require a taxpayer to keep track of 16 gambling winnings using a diary or a log, which is 17 unrealistic because no one goes to a casino with a 18 log . If the winnings exceed $1,200, he pointed out, a 19 form is required to be filed . 20 Mr . Sjoberg also complained that, in the 21 case of businesses and farm activities, the term 22 "income" is considered to be "net income", rather than 23 "gross income" . On the other hand, in the case o f 24 gambling, all winnings must be included in income and 25 any related expenses must be deducted as an itemized Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 deduction . He complained that he has no othe r 2 itemized deductions and this treatment is unfair in 3 his case . 4 VIII . 5 We note that petitioners raised similar 6 issues before this Court in a case involving their 7 joint return for taxable year 2004 . See S-joberg v . 8 Commissioner , T .C . Summary Opinion 2008 - 162 . W e 9 stated in that case , " petitioners ' arguments raised 10 policy issues that do not relieve petitioners of their 11 liability for the determined deficiency ." The same is 12 true in this case . Accordingly, we hereby sustai n 13 respondent's determination of the $555 deficiency in 14 petitioners ' Federal income tax for taxable year 2006 . 15 Petitioners are hereby warned that thei r 16 position in these proceedings was frivolous an d 17 groundless . If they persist in raising the same or 18 similar arguments in the future , the Court may impose 19 a penalty of up to $25,000, pursuant to section 6673 . 20 IX . 21 In order to give effect to the foregoing, 22 decision will be entered for respondent . 23 X . 24 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 25 fact and opinion in this case . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 (Whereupon , at 4 :44 p .m ., the bench opinion 2 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888