TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gerard Hubert Guyod
Docket Number: 2078-15S
Judge: Buch
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/18/2016
Pages: 5

RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GERARD HUBERT GUYOD, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 2078-15S. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit with this order to petitioner and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in this case before Judge Ronald L. Buch at San Diego, California, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155. (Signed) Ronald L. Buch Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 18, 2016 SERVED Mar 21 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Ronald Buch 2 March 9, 2016 3 Gerard Hubert Guyod v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Docket No. 2078-15S THE COURT: When a case does not require a trial for the submission of evidence, as, for example, if sufficient facts have been admitted, Stipulated, or included in the record in some other way, then the case may be submitted by motion of the parties under Rule 122. In this case, the Court held a conference call with the parties on February 29, 2016, to discuss the status of the case. On that call the parties agreed that there were no facts in dispute. The parties have since provided the Court with a comprehensive Stipulation of Facts and jointly moved to submit this case under Rule 122. The Court is satisfied that the case is appropriate for disposition on the stipulated facts, and their joint motion is granted. We now turn to the merits of this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and opinion may not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is in conformity with 866.488.DEPO twww.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 Internal Revenue Code Section 7459(b) and Rule 152(a) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Any section references refer to the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury regulations in effect during the year at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax 6 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 7 8 9 10 11 12 This case was heard pursuant to section 7463. Under Section 7463(b), the decision to be entered in this case is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion may not be treated as precedent er any other case. The facts in this case are not in dispute. 13 Mr. Guyod was a recreational gambler in 2012, and he 14 15 16 gambled at Agua Caliente Casino. His gambling losses exceeded his gambling income. Perhaps for that reason he did not report the gambling activity on his tax return. The Commissioner determined a deficiency 18 of $673 and issued Mr. Guyod a Notice of Deficiency on October 20, 2014. The notice increased his gross income by $32,998 in winnings, but also allowed an equal amount of gambling losses. While residing in California, Mr. Guyod filed a timely return. While this case has been pending, Mr. Guyod submitted afd a revised tax return to the IRS showing, and agreeing, that he won $32,998 in 2012 20 21 22 23 25 866.488.DEPO twww.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 and claiming an offsetting loss in the same amount. Mr. Guyod does not contest the income or purport to be a professional gambler. He agrees that he is allowed gambling losses only up to the amount of his gambling winnings for the year. He even agrees that the gambling winnings and losses must be reported separately on his tax return. The only dispute in this case is a computational issue. Respondent argues that because of the increase in Mr. Guyod's gross income from the gambling winnings, his taxable social security income also increased, resulting in a tax deficiency of $673. Mr. Guyod claims his tax deficiency is zero. DISCUSSION We have repeatedly addressed the manner in which gambling winnings and losses are taken into account for tax purposes. In Jackson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2007-373, we stated "In the case of a taxpayer not engaged in the trade or business of gambling, gambling losses are allowable as an itemized deduction, but only to the extent of gains from such transactions." We cited section 165(d) and McClanahan v. United States, 292 F.2d 630, n.1 (5th Cir. 1961). That case in 4em- cited Winkler yy, v. United States, 230 F.2d 766 (1st Cir. 1956). 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO twww.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current law is clear that for the nonprofessional wagering income is taken into account as part of gross income; wagering losses are taken into account as itemized deductions. Neither party disputes this. Accordingly, Mr. Guyod must report his gambling income of $32,998, and is allowed an itemized deduction of $32,998 for his gambling losses for 2012. This reporting is consistent with the 10 Commissioner's notice of deficiency. Because Mr. 11 Guyod's real dispute is with the computation of the 12 deficiency, decision will be entered under Rule 155, 13 which will require that the IRS provide Mr. Guyod 14 with its computation. If he identifies an error in that computation the Court will resolve it through the Rule 155 process. (Whereupon, at 8:48 a.m. the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO twww.CapitalReportingCompany.com