Filed: May 02, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: T.C. Summary Opinion 2019-8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOEL H. ARSEO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 7862-18S. Filed May 2, 2019. Joel H. Arseo, pro se. Gretchen W. Altenburger, for respondent. SUMMARY OPINION GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all rele
Summary: T.C. Summary Opinion 2019-8 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOEL H. ARSEO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 7862-18S. Filed May 2, 2019. Joel H. Arseo, pro se. Gretchen W. Altenburger, for respondent. SUMMARY OPINION GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relev..
More
T.C. Summary Opinion 2019-8
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JOEL H. ARSEO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7862-18S. Filed May 2, 2019.
Joel H. Arseo, pro se.
Gretchen W. Altenburger, for respondent.
SUMMARY OPINION
GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section
7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.
-2-
Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any
other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.
Respondent determined a $1,907 income tax deficiency for petitioner’s 2015 tax
year. The deficiency was based upon three adjustments and gave rise to the
following issues: (1) whether petitioner failed to report $25 of interest income,
(2) whether petitioner failed to report $2,994 of gambling income, and (3) whether
petitioner is entitled to a $6,500 deduction for a contribution to an individual
retirement account (IRA).
Background
Petitioner resided in Arizona at the time his petition was filed. During 2015
he was employed by the State of Arizona and paid a salary of $28,577, of which
$25,687 was reported as wages on petitioner’s 2015 Form W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement.2 Petitioner’s Form W-2 did not include $2,890 that he contributed to
the Arizona State Retirement System for 2015.
On his 2015 Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, petitioner
reported income of $25,687 from wages and claimed a deduction of $6,500 for an
IRA contribution. Petitioner occasionally gambled and for 2015 two Forms
W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings, were issued to him and reported to the
2
All amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
-3-
Internal Revenue Service in the total amount of $2,994. Petitioner did not
maintain records of his gambling activity, and the amounts wagered were modest.
He considered gambling a form of amusement and generally believed that he
would not win much, but he continued playing for the entertainment. Petitioner
and the Internal Revenue Service also received information that petitioner
received $25 of interest income during 2015. Petitioner did not report the
gambling winnings or the interest income on his 2015 Federal income tax return.
Petitioner did not claim itemized deductions on his 2015 return and instead
chose to use the standard deduction of $9,250. Respondent, in a notice of
deficiency, determined the income tax deficiency in dispute by including in gross
income the Forms W-2G gambling winnings and the interest income and by
disallowing the $6,500 deduction for an IRA contribution.
Discussion
Petitioner admits that he had $25 of interest income for 2015. He also
admits that he had gambling winnings of $2,994, but he contends that he had
gambling losses in excess of the winnings shown on the Forms W-2G. Section
165(d) provides that gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling
winnings. To be entitled to deduct gambling losses, a taxpayer should provide
records or other documentation that shows how the losses were calculated. See
-4-
Rev. Proc. 77-29, 1977-2 C.B. 538. Failure to maintain such records normally
results in the disallowance of such losses. Rios v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2012-128, aff’d, 586 F. App’x 268 (9th Cir. 2014).
Petitioner has admitted that he did not maintain records of his gambling
activity. Assuming arguendo that petitioner could substantiate $2,994 of gambling
losses, the losses would have to be claimed as an itemized deduction. See
id.
There is no evidence of itemized deductions other than the $2,994 of gambling
losses. Petitioner would have to come up with more than $6,256 of additional
itemized deductions to be better off than with the $9,250 standard deduction he
claimed on the 2015 return. Accordingly, on this record, proof of losses to offset
the Forms W-2G gambling winnings would not result in a lower tax liability for
petitioner.
With respect to the $6,500 IRA deduction claimed on the 2015 return,
petitioner testified that he arrived at that amount, roughly, by doubling his $2,890
contribution to the Arizona State Retirement System to account for the State’s
matching and his own contribution. Irrespective of the inaccurate mathematics of
petitioner’s computation, his $2,890 IRA contribution was a pretax reduction from
his annual wages, i.e., it was not subject to Federal income tax. Under the
-5-
circumstances of this case the pretax contributions are not deductible. See
generally sec. 219(a), (e).
Petitioner, during the trial, complained that respondent’s lack of
responsiveness during the administrative portion of his case caused him stress.
The extent to which respondent may have been unresponsive during the
administrative process has no direct bearing on whether his determination was in
error. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner was required to include in his gross
income his Forms W-2G gambling winnings and his interest income, and he was
not entitled to claim a deduction for pretax contributions to his Arizona State
Retirement System account.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.