MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WELLS,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated for trial pursuant to
At the time the petitions were filed, petitioners resided in Ohio.
During 2003 petitioner husband received gambling income of $ 668 from Carat Co., Inc., and $ 792 from Washington Trotting Association, Inc. During 2004 petitioner husband received $ 900 from Washington Trotting Association, Inc. Petitioners failed to report the gambling income on their 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*178 respective tax returns for 2003 and 2004.
During 2003 and 2004 petitioner husband received Social Security income of $ 9,296 and $ 9,487, respectively. Petitioners failed to report the taxable portion of the Social Security income of $ 3,484 on their tax return for 2003 and of $ 4,304 on their tax return for 2004.
During 2003 petitioner wife received taxable pension and annuity income of $ 490 from Principal Life Insurance Co. Petitioners failed to report the pension and annuity income on their tax return for 2003.
During 2003 petitioners received $ 2,055 from H&R Block as a result of a "breach of contract" suit. Petitioners failed to report the income from the suit on their tax return for 2003.
OPINION
All of the income items have been stipulated by the parties except for the $ 100 in interest income for 2004, as to which petitioners do not make any argument and which we take as a concession by petitioners. Consequently, the only issue left to decide is whether petitioners are entitled to deductions for gambling expenses for the years in issue. Petitioners raised the gambling expense issue at trial. Petitioners have not argued that petitioner husband is in the gambling trade or business. Consequently, if we were to allow petitioners' claimed 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 177">*180 gambling expenses, they would be deductible only as itemized expenses. However, petitioners concede they do not itemize their expenses, and, in any case, as the record shows, petitioners do not have sufficient expenses to allow them to itemize their expenses for the years in issue. Accordingly, as petitioners have failed to establish their right to deduct any gambling expenses for the years in issue, we hold that petitioners are not entitled to deduct their claimed gambling expenses. Consequently, on the basis of the record, we sustain respondent on the issues raised herein. We have considered all of the arguments of the parties, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we deem those arguments to be without merit, irrelevant, or unnecessary to reach.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. These cases are consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion.↩