Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
The fact that the court found her to be a gambling 'expert' is a troubling sign that our justice system has gone insane.
|
And don't forget she consulted the slot attendants, which shows how shrewd she was.
Here's a link to the opinion:
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...pd.SUM.WPD.pdf
The whole opinion reads like a parody. Honestly, it's like the Tax Court was trying to be absurd. The paranoid side of me, however, wonders if the Tax Court is trying to either provoke Congress into writing some new tax code which would prohibit anyone from filing a Sch C as a professional gambler, or else provoke the Supreme Court into overturning Groetzinger.
Note that a "summary opinion" cannot be used as a precedent for other cases.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pmacdaddy
Reading it through. It says she was allowed to deduct gambling losses to offset gains. Isn't that the case for anyone with reportable gambling income?
It says she wasn't allowed to deduct the net gambling losses against her regular (trucking) income. So what did she really accomplish?
Is it an issue of being able to deduct expenses associated with her slot play and carryover of losses?
|
Yes, you can deduct expenses if you file Sch. C, but I'm pretty sure you cannot carry over losses. I know for sure there's a specific prohibition against writing off gambling business losses against other income--that's even alluded to in this Tax Court opinion. And I'm reasonably sure that you cannot carry over losses.
Her biggest incentive to file as a business is to avoid the problems with the Alternative Minimum Tax. If you declare your losses as a deduction on Sch A, you can still get hit with a big tax bill because of the AMT.
It's not clear to me what was different about 2003 from the other years. It says she made a profit in 2003, but then it seems to say she deducted her losses up to the amount of her winnings.
--Dunbar