DocketNumber: Docket No. 20037-95.
Judges: DAWSON,ARMEN
Filed Date: 2/18/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
*80 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON,
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
ARMEN,
Addition to Tax | Penalty | ||
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6662(a) |
1989 | $ 5,422 | $ 1,263 | $ 1,084 |
1992 | 39,312 | 9,268 | 7,862 |
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to gambling losses in the amounts of $ 29,978 and $ 140,830 for 1989 and 1992, respectively; (2) whether petitioner is liable pursuant to
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. Petitioner resided in Miami Beach, Florida, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court.
1.
Petitioner began gambling in 1974. Sometime thereafter, petitioner developed into a compulsive gambler.
During 1989 and 1992, the taxable years in issue, petitioner attended the dog and horse racing tracks on a regular and frequent basis. During those years, petitioner gambled on a full-time basis and was not otherwise gainfully employed.
*83At trial, petitioner did not introduce any books or records reflecting his gambling winnings and losses. Petitioner does not remember whether he maintained books or records reflecting his gambling winnings and losses for 1989. Petitioner maintained a gambling log for 1992; however, such log was not accurate because, in petitioner's opinion, it was "time-consuming to * * * make it precise".
2.
On his 1989 and 1992 Federal income returns, petitioner identified his occupation as a "professional gambler" and reported gambling winnings in the amounts of $ 29,978 and $ 140,830, respectively. *84 Of the $ 140,830 reported as gambling winnings on the 1992 return, $ 90,830 represent winnings for which Forms W-2G were issued. The remaining $ 50,000 represent petitioner's estimate of his winnings for that year. Although the record is not perfectly clear, it would appear that the gambling winnings reported on the 1989 return represent only winnings for which Forms W-2G were issued.
On Schedule A of his 1989 and 1992 returns, petitioner deducted gambling losses in the amount of his reported winnings; i.e., $ 29,978 and $ 140,830, respectively.
Petitioner filed his income tax returns for 1989 and 1992 in April 1994.
3.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes in the amounts of $ 5,422 and $ 39,312 for 1989 and 1992, respectively. Specifically, respondent determined that petitioner failed to substantiate his gambling losses. Accordingly, respondent disallowed the gambling loss deductions claimed by petitioner on Schedule A of his 1989 and 1992 returns.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent also determined that, for 1989 and 1992, petitioner was liable for (1) additions to tax under
OPINION
1.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving error in respondent's determination.
If the trial record provides sufficient evidence that a taxpayer has incurred a deductible expense, but the taxpayer is unable to adequately substantiate the amount of the deduction to which he or she is otherwise entitled, the Court may, under certain circumstances, estimate the amount of such expense and allow the deduction to that extent.
At trial, petitioner admitted that he could not remember whether he maintained contemporaneous records of his gambling activity for 1989. At trial, petitioner also admitted that although he maintained records of his gambling activity for 1992, such records were inaccurate. In any event, petitioner did *87 not provide the Court with any records or documentation whatsoever regarding his gambling activity for either 1989 or 1992. The only evidence presented by petitioner to support the deductions for gambling losses was petitioner's own testimony.
We recognize that petitioner must have sustained some losses in view of his substantial gambling activity. However, we are reminded of petitioner's testimony that petitioner estimated a portion of the gambling winnings reported on his 1992 return. Moreover, the gambling winnings that were reported on the 1989 return appear to represent only those winnings for which Forms W-2G were issued. Thus, we have no assurance that petitioner reported all of his gambling winnings. This uncertainty, together with the complete absence of any documentation or other credible corroborating evidence concerning petitioner's gambling activity, precludes us from estimating petitioner's alleged losses under the rule of
The addition to tax under
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his failure to timely file is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
Petitioner's income tax return for 1989 was due on Monday, April 16, 1990, and petitioner's return for 1992 was due on April 15, 1993. Secs. 6072(a), 7503. However, petitioner's returns for 1989 and 1992 were filed in April 1994. Petitioner offered no persuasive evidence indicative of reasonable cause to file late. This Court has consistently held that a taxpayer's failure to file a timely return because the taxpayer thought that no taxes were due does not constitute reasonable cause within the meaning of
3.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty.
Petitioner did not address the penalty for negligence at trial and therefore failed to carry his burden of proof. In any event, we note that petitioner's failure to maintain accurate and complete records of his gambling activity would suffice to sustain respondent's determination. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties for 1989 and 1992.
4.
To give effect*90 to our disposition of the disputed issues,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Although petitioner reported his gambling losses on Schedule A rather than on Schedule C, he considered himself to be a professional gambler. In contrast, respondent considers petitioner to be an amateur gambler. However, because of our holding that petitioner is not entitled to deduct any gambling losses for 1989 and 1992, we need not decide petitioner's status as a professional or amateur gambler. See