1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 606">*606 Decision will be entered for respondent, except as to the addition to tax under
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG,
After concessions, 2 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are engaged in the business of being professional slot machine players, and, if so, whether they are entitled to claim certain gambling related expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses under
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Reno, Nevada, at the time their petition was filed.
Petitioner Bernard F. Kochevar, Sr. (Mr. Kochevar) has been employed by Welsh Engineering, Inc. as an engineer and surveyor since 1988, and, according to his testimony, works an average of 50 to 70 hours each week. Petitioner Marlene C. Kochevar (Mrs. Kochevar) is a paralegal, and, during 1990, worked for several employers. For several months during the year, Mrs. Kochevar maintained a full-time position with the Airport Authority in Nevada, as well as a part-time position1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 606">*608 with Welsh Engineering, Inc. as an evening contract typist. At all times during 1990, Mrs. Kochevar maintained full-time employment.
Petitioners began playing progressive slot machines on a frequent basis in 1989. Petitioners testified that they traveled to local casinos in the evenings after work and on weekends, spending 20 to 40 hours each week studying and playing slot machines. They spent the majority of their time at the Sparks Nugget and Western Village casinos in Sparks, Nevada, and the Peppermill Casino in Reno.
On or about April 15, 1991, petitioners filed a Form 4868 requesting an automatic 4-month extension of time to file their 1990 joint Federal income tax return and paying their estimated 1990 net tax liability of $ 1,813. Petitioners' request was granted, and, on August 15, 1991, the final day of the extension, they postmarked their 1990 return, wherein they requested a refund of $ 6,461. This amount was calculated as follows: total tax due of $ 7,199, less Federal income tax withheld of $ 11,847 and $ 1,813 paid with Form 4868. Petitioners received their refund of $ 6,461 in a check dated September 20, 1991, issued by the U.S. Treasury.
On the Schedule C attached1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 606">*609 to their 1990 Federal income tax return, petitioners stated that they were engaged in the business of being professional slot machine players. They reported income and expenses from gambling activities in the respective amounts of $ 24,777 and $ 47,853, resulting in a net loss of $ 23,076. The expenses claimed in connection with their gambling were as follows: (1) Automatic teller machine (ATM) charges and tips in the amount of $ 740; (2) office expenses and supplies totaling $ 37; (3) mileage allotment for travel to the casinos in the amount of $ 340; (4) meals at the casinos in the amount of $ 144; and (5) losses in the amount of $ 46,592. Petitioners also attached a Form 8275 to their return, wherein they disclosed the nature and extent of their gambling activities in great detail.
On September 2, 1992, after their 1990 Federal income tax return was selected for examination, petitioners met with Mr. Lynn Peterson, an Appeals Officer of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to discuss their case. In a letter dated June 17, 1993, Mr. Peterson stated in pertinent part: You and I discussed you and your wife's approach to slot machine playing and I told you that I accepted that 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 606">*610 you were in a trade or business. I still accept that you are in a trade or business. * * * * * * Absent any other provision of the * * * [However,] the problem is (d) Wagering Losses.--Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions. * * * * * * If you wish a report to accept the adjustments, please call or write by 7/15/93. If I do not hear from you at all, then I will have to send you the report, called a statutory notice of deficiency, that will allow you to take the issues to the Tax Court.
In the notice of deficiency dated September 24, 1993, respondent determined that petitioners were not entitled to deduct expenses connected with wagering in excess of gross receipts from the wagering activities under
To resolve the conflict between
See also
1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 606">*612 In an attempt to overcome the limitation of
In response to petitioners' first argument, the fact that petitioners received a tax refund does not preclude respondent from later determining a deficiency in petitioners' taxes for the same taxable year.
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for an addition to tax for filing their 1990 Federal income tax return after the due date.
Respondent1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 606">*614 contends that petitioners' 1990 tax return was due on April 15, 1991, and that the return was not filed until August 19, 1991. Petitioners maintain that they had an automatic extension of time to file their tax return. While it is true that petitioner filed an application for an automatic extension of time, respondent contends that the application is invalid because petitioners failed to estimate properly their tax for 1990 when they filed their Form 4868.
On their application for extension, petitioners estimated their 1990 tax liability, without taking into consideration their gambling losses, to be $ 13,660. After deducting taxes withheld of $ 11,847, petitioner remitted a check to the IRS in the amount of $ 1,813. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioners' 1990 tax liability was $ 13,824. The deficiency resulted from the refund issued to petitioners after they filed their return on August 19, 1991.
Exactitude is not required in making an estimation of one's tax liability for purposes of an automatic extension.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioners concede that they failed to report interest income of $ 45 and nonemployee compensation of $ 1,253.↩