The outdated saying “you win some, you lose some” just isn’t true for many leisure gamblers.  For them, the saying is extra like “you win some, you lose extra.”  However proving that proves an issue.  In Jacob Brilliant v. Commissioner, Docket No. 10095-22 (Could 4, 2023), Choose Buch teaches us how taxpayers can use their participant playing cards to substantiate their wagering losses.  There, Mr. Brilliant reported some $241,000 of wagering good points on his 2019 return, and an equal quantity of losses.  Nonetheless, he apparently didn’t observe greatest practices—as very properly defined on this article—of holding day by day contemporaneous data.  When audited, the IRS accepted his self-reported earnings (natch!) however disallowed all the losses for lack of substantiation (double natch!).

In Tax Court docket, Choose Buch allowed Mr. Brilliant to introduce studies of his participant card exercise, from every of the three Casinos he gambled at in 2019.  That created a adequate foundation for the Court docket to make use of the Cohan rule, albeit otherwise for every On line casino.  The Court docket used this methodology to estimate $191,000 of losses.  In taking this method for calculating wagering losses, Choose Buch provides us a brand new concept of “per session” netting value contemplating, not just for proving up wagering losses, but additionally for calculating wagering good points.  I’d name it a “per institution” method.  It makes a superb little bit of sense.  Particulars beneath the fold.

The Large Image: Therapy of Playing Losses
It’s not simply in Casinos the place the chances are towards you.  Congress has stacked the deductions deck in favor of the federal government.  Despite the fact that §165(d) permits taxpayers to deduct wagering losses as much as the quantity of wagering good points, §62 and §67 mix to make these deductions below-the-line.  At greatest, taxpayers are compelled to report an inflated Adjusted Gross Earnings, which might adversely have an effect on entitlement to numerous different tax advantages.  Worse, this construction additionally means the §165(d) deduction fights towards the usual deduction.  And, worst of all, taxpayers could not be capable to substantiate their losses sufficiently to even permit any below-the-line deduction!

The fundamental purpose for this seemingly lopsided construction is that playing is historically considered as a type of recreation.  So the prices are nondeductible underneath the final guidelines in §262 that disallows deductions for private bills.  Nonetheless, similar to with different hobbies, a playing passion produces some earnings, as a byproduct of the recreation.  Thus, §162(d) partially overrides 262.  It really works equally to §183 which allows deductions of passion prices as much as the quantity of passion earnings.  Truly, §162(d) is presently extra favorable as a result of, in contrast to deductions approved by §183, it’s not a miscellaneous itemized deduction that will get sucked into the §67(g) black gap of nothingness till 2026.  See Lesson From The Tax Court docket #200: The Nice Divide, TaxProf Weblog (Oct. 18, 2021)(reviewing Gregory v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-115, the place the Court docket held the taxpayer couldn’t take §183 bills as above-the-line deductions).

Nonetheless, you see how this construction works towards taxpayers.  For instance, in Viso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-154, the taxpayers had didn’t report wagering good points of $5,060 on their 2012 return.  They’d additionally not elected to itemize, as an alternative taking the usual deduction, which for that yr was $12,200 for MFJ returns.  Choose Vasquez noticed that regardless that he agreed that the taxpayers had proved wagering losses in extra of $5,060, it will not assist them:

“Petitioners’ commonplace deduction, $12,200, exceeds their potential itemized deduction for playing losses, $5,060. Thus, petitioners’ election to take the usual deduction resulted in a bigger deduction than if that they had taken an itemized deduction for his or her playing losses.”

So meaning the Visos needed to fake they have been $5,000 winners within the Casinos once they actually have been simply web losers.  Readers can get a wider impression of this huge image in Lesson From The Tax Court docket: Dropping Gambler Will get Twice Fortunate In Tax Court docket, TaxProf Weblog (Oct. 26, 2020).  And readers can get the pointillist remedy in Bryan Camp, Taxation of Digital Gaming, 77 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 661 (2020).

Small Image: How To Work a Gambler’s Case
Whether or not getting ready a leisure gambler’s return or serving to such a shopper in audit or in courtroom, a practitioner wants to have the ability to substantiate two objects: (1) an earnings merchandise of good points from “wagering transactions,” §165(d), and (2) a deduction merchandise of losses from wagering transactions.

Engaging in each of these duties requires exhibiting a gambler’s historical past of wagers, together with profitable wagers and non-winning wagers.  Having a participant card helps with each of these duties.  Let’s take a better look.

(1) Reporting Positive aspects
Usually, a taxpayer doesn’t have to show earnings!  Nonetheless, there’s an excessive amount of uncertainty about what are the wagering good points that should be reported as earnings.  That’s as a result of a wagering acquire is just that fee that exceeds the related wager.  And what constitutes the related wager has modified over time.

For many years the IRS took a “per-transaction” method to figuring out good points.  Every profitable transaction was a separate reportable merchandise of earnings to the extent that the profitable quantity exceeded the guess positioned.  The related wager was the only wager related to the only wagering transaction.  So taxpayers have been supposed so as to add up all their profitable transactions to get “wagering good points.”  That’s what acquired reported as gross earnings.  The Tax Court docket defined this method in Bonparte v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-193:

“A wagering transaction ends in a acquire if the profitable exceeds the price of the wager. A wagering transaction ends in a loss if the price of the wager exceeds the profitable. The good points for all wagering transactions for which there’s a acquire are totaled. See sec. 1.165-10, Earnings Tax Regs. These are the good points from wagering transactions throughout the that means of part 165(d). Gross earnings is elevated by this whole acquire.”

Nonetheless, the IRS modified its method in 2008 from a “per-transaction” methodology of calculating wagering good points to a “per-session” methodology. Chief Counsel Recommendation 2008-11 (Dec. 5, 2008) (“Reporting of Wagering Positive aspects and Losses”) tells us {that a} “taxpayer acknowledges a wagering acquire if, on the finish of a single session of play, the whole greenback quantity of wagers positioned by the taxpayer on electronically tracked slot machine play throughout that session exceeds the whole greenback quantity of wagers positioned by the taxpayer on electronically tracked slot machine play throughout that session.” (emphasis provided).

The per-session method principally permits taxpayers to mixture whole wagers positioned in the course of the single session of play to offset whole payouts obtained in the course of the session.  For instance, in Shollenberger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2009-306, the taxpayers went to a On line casino on March 29, 2005 with $500 and walked out later that day with $1,600 jingling of their pockets, partly as a result of they hit a $2,000 slot-machine jackpot.  They deposited that $1,600 the subsequent day.  The Court docket held that they had gross earnings of $1,100 from that session regardless of their receipt of a W-2G exhibiting fee of $2,000.  Discover that these people truly cashed out on the finish of their session of play.

One issue with the per-session method is determining what time frame counts as a “session.”  For instance, the Shollenbergers needed to mix all their numerous journeys to Casinos in 2005.  They needed to make all the yr a single session.  Choose Thornton rejected that, rightly observing that “To allow an informal gambler to web all wagering good points or losses all year long would intrude upon, if not defeat or render superfluous, the cautious statutory association that permits deduction of informal playing losses, if in any respect, solely as itemized deductions, topic to the constraints of part 165(d).”

So it’s a must to determine classes with wagering good points and classes with wagering losses.  The issue is that the IRS takes an inconsistent place on what constitutes a “session.”  And the idea may be very tough to use to digital accounts.

For taxpayers, the IRS takes the place {that a} session can by no means exceed 24 hours and should finish, on the newest, at midnight.  See Discover 2015-21.  This was a discover of a proposed Income Ruling that might give taxpayers a protected harbor methodology for figuring out wagering good points and losses on slot machine play. So far as I can inform, the proposed Rev. Rul. has not, thus far, been finalized or issued.  And a superb factor too as a result of the place taken there contradicts the place taken for Casinos.

For Casinos, Treas. Reg. §1.6041–10 additionally permits reporting on a per-session foundation, which it calls the “data reporting interval.”  Nonetheless, the IRS doesn’t require Casinos to routinely finish a session at midnight.  As a substitute, the Casinos could decide the beginning and finish level of a “gaming day.”  Thus, in 1.6014-10(g)(1), instance 5 posits a On line casino with a gaming day that begins at 3 am and ends at 2:59 am the next morning.  It posits a taxpayer who has two reportable wins (one in every of $1,500 and one in every of $5,000) and one other non-reportable win ($800).  There, the regulation says the On line casino can select to problem a single W-2G for $6,500 reasonably than two separate W-2G’s.

The plain downside right here is that if the taxpayer within the instance had their first reportable win earlier than midnight and their second one after midnight, they would want to account for 2 classes of play and never one session of play underneath the principles in Discover 2015-21.  What meaning is that for every session the taxpayer might want to have data to point out whether or not they ended the session with a acquire, regardless of the quantities reported on the W-2G.

A second downside with the per-session method for taxpayers is the strain with the third-party reporting necessities adopted by Casinos, even when the principles for what counts as a session have been constant.  The strain comes from how a per-session method modifications what counts because the related wager for figuring out acquire.  Casinos should not have to observe a session method.  They will nonetheless problem their W-2Gs on a per-transaction foundation.  If the taxpayer studies good points on a per-session foundation, nevertheless, then the W-2G turns into much more inaccurate.  It not solely omits accounting for the only wager related to the only transaction reported, however it additionally omits accounting for all wagers—profitable and non-winning wagers—positioned in the course of the session (or “data reporting interval”).  Thus, the W-2G turns into even an excellent much less applicable proxy for earnings.

You see this downside within the Viso case described above.  There, Mr. Viso obtained three W-2Gs, every reporting a fee of greater than $1,200 and totaling $5,060. Mr. Viso tried to argue that these funds weren’t his good points from these wagering transactions as a result of the W-2G’s didn’t mirror the related wagers.  The Tax Court docket rejected that argument with this reasoning:

“Though petitioners launched proof of losses at one other On line casino (along with lottery tickets and sporting bets), the file comprises no proof specifying how a lot petitioner husband guess to supply the winnings mirrored on the Kinds W-2G. In sure conditions we could estimate the quantity of a discount in earnings even when the taxpayer fails to maintain data, however provided that the taxpayer presents adequate proof to ascertain a rational foundation for making the estimate. Since we have now no foundation for estimating the quantities of petitioner husband’s bets, we maintain that petitioners should embody playing winnings of $5,060 of their gross earnings.”  Op. at 6 (citations omitted).

Thus, having the ability to substantiate the related wagers is necessary for establishing correct good points from wagering actions.  It’s additionally necessary, in fact, to show losses.

(2) Proving Losses
The per-session method permits a taxpayer to web all wagers made throughout a session with all funds obtained to calculate a web acquire or web loss from the session.  The per-session method, nevertheless, doesn’t allow taxpayers to web all wagers revamped the course of a yr in any respect Casinos towards all funds obtained for all the yr from all Casinos.  As Choose Thornton defined in Shollenberger, that might render §165(d) meaningless.

So how ought to a taxpayer substantiate these wagering losses incurred in the course of the yr that can’t be netted towards good points in calculating the outcomes of a session?  The IRS has some outdated, wacky, steering on how a taxpayer ought to substantiate wagers in Rev. Proc. 77-29.  Previous?  Sure.  It says a taxpayer is meant to trace every wagering transaction.  That’s the now-abandoned per-transaction method.  Now, the participant ought to observe every session:  beginning quantity, ending quantity.  Wacky?  Sure.  It says the taxpayer is meant to trace even the “Identify(s) of different individual(s) (if any) current with taxpayer at playing institution.” Actually?  So you could get the title of the slot-machine participant subsequent to you?  And solely the title?  Do it’s a must to ask for identification or are you able to simply settle for their response of “John Smith”?

Nonetheless, everyone knows that it’s the taxpayer’s duty to substantiate deductions and, as I clarify above, it’s crucial to the taxpayer’s potential to correctly report earnings that the taxpayer observe all non-winning wagers in a session.

So the trick for proving losses from wagering transactions is to see which wagers one can mixture.  That’s, one should decide the related “session” for the actual On line casino or different gaming institution after which be capable to determine the wagers made.

We be taught as we speak how On line casino participant accounts may help.

Info and Lesson: Participant Accounts and a Per-Institution Method
Mr. Brilliant had a playing behavior that “made life financially tough for him.” Op. at 12.  Choose Buch notes that in 2019 Mr. Brilliant cashed “most of his paychecks to gamble” and that “checking account data present that his account continuously had a low or destructive steadiness in 2019.”  Id.

In 2019 he gambled largely at three Casinos: Mystic Lake; Treasure Island (MN, not NV); and Diamond Jo Value.  At every On line casino he nearly all the time used a participant card.  That allowed him to get studies from every of the three Casinos for his 2019 play exercise.

For 2019 Mr. Brilliant obtained 24 W-2G’s, all from slot machine payouts: 2 from Diamond Jo; 5 from Treasure Island; and 17 from Mystic Lake.  Mr. Brilliant had his 2019 return ready for him.  However the preparer apparently confused compulsive playing with skilled playing and thus had him file a Schedule C reporting over $241,000 of gross receipts from his “enterprise” and an equal quantity of §165(d) deductions.  Nobody was certain how the return preparer got here up with both determine. The W-2Gs totaled simply over $110,500 and whereas Mr. Brilliant undoubtedly received greater than reported there, it seems there have been no data.  Nonetheless, for some purpose, his return preparer reported some $241,000 of earnings from wagering transactions.

On audit the IRS determined his playing exercise was leisure.  It accepted his earnings as reported however disallowed all of his deductions for lack of substantiation.

In Tax Court docket, continuing pro-se, Mr. Brilliant agreed he was no skilled.  He argued, nevertheless, that the preparer had mis-reported his playing earnings and that the IRS was improper to disallow all of his losses.

As to the earnings merchandise, Choose Buch principally mentioned “too dangerous, so unhappy.”  Mr. Brilliant had reported that quantity and will now current no proof to the Court docket on why it was inflated.  “In sum…he has didn’t negate his personal reporting.”  Op. at 11.

The lesson comes on the deduction aspect.  Right here, Choose Buch takes a really comparable method to that of Choose Lauber in Coleman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-146, which I blogged about in Lesson From The Tax Court docket: Dropping Gambler Will get Twice Fortunate In Tax Court docket, TaxProf Weblog (Oct. 26, 2020).  And right here is the place the On line casino participant card data actually turn out to be necessary.

First, the participant card data allow Choose Buch to search out that Mr. Brilliant “suffered substantial playing losses” in 2019.  Op. at 12.  Choose Buch explains “Certainly, the On line casino studies verify his testimony, exhibiting that even with some sizable winnings, he misplaced greater than he received for these occasions when his wins and losses have been captured.  Though the On line casino data don’t seize the complete image, they supply a adequate foundation upon which we are able to make an estimate.” Id.

That’s the crucial first step in organising utility of the Cohan rule, as I clarify in Lesson From The Tax Court docket: The Construction Of Substantiation Necessities, TaxProf Weblog (June 1, 2021).  To persuade the Court docket to estimate a correct deduction, a taxpayer should first set up a nexus with the statute that permits the deduction.  Right here, that statute is §165(d) and so the required nexus is to ascertain the very fact of losses, even when not the precise quantity.  The participant card data do exactly that.  Despite the fact that they weren’t complete (Mr. Brilliant gambled elsewhere and should not have all the time used his participant card) they have been strong proof that he spent cash … a LOT of cash … in his leisure playing passion.

Second, the participant card data enabled Choose Buch to give you an inexpensive quantity of losses to deduct towards the reported winnings.  And right here Choose Buch, once more echoing Choose Lauber’s method in Coleman, makes use of the Cohan doctrine to primarily bypass the per-session method.  As a substitute, he substitutes a per-establishment method.

Choose Buch begins by noting that every On line casino studies participant card exercise otherwise.  Mystic Lake reported participant exercise on a month-to-month foundation, reporting solely whether or not the participant’s account mirrored a web loss or a web acquire for the month.  Treasure Island reported solely the online annual exercise and broke it out by supply: slots or the pit space.  Nonetheless, in contrast to the opposite two Casinos, it additionally reported the {dollars} Mr. Brilliant spent in every space by way of his participant card.  That will be his wagers.  Lastly Diamond Jo, like Treasure Island, reported solely the online annual exercise, however apparently solely tracked Mr. Brilliant’s slot machine play that means and didn’t report his wagers, simply his yearly web.

Due to these distinction, Choose Buch analyzed Mr. Brilliant’s exercise for every on line casino individually.

For Mystic Lake, Choose Buch accepted the month-to-month web loss after which added to that any winnings reported on a W-2G. “For instance, his Kind W-2G winnings at Mystic Lake for January totaled $8,162, however [since] he had an total web lack of $1,192, he will need to have misplaced $9,354.”  Op. at 12.

For Treasure Island, nevertheless, Choose Buch had solely the yearly web report and so estimated Mr. Brilliant’s losses by the exercise reported for slot machine play individually from exercise reported for pit playing.  Once more, Choose Buch added any W-2G quantities as a result of “for him to have netted a loss, he will need to have additionally misplaced what he received.”  Op. at 14.

Lastly, for Diamond Jo, Choose Buch once more has no issue coming to a conclusion that whereas the On line casino participant data confirmed a yearly backside line lack of $894, the truth that it additionally issued 2 W-2Gs totaling $3,568 meant his “losses from wagering transactions” have been at the very least $4,462.

Choose Buch then added the annualized losses from every On line casino to conclude that “Mr. Brilliant suffered playing losses of at the very least $191,756.”  Op. at 14.

Backside Line:  Mr. Brilliant’s nearly fixed use of participant playing cards at every On line casino saved him.  It allowed him to show that he had some “losses from wagering transactions” throughout the ambit of §165(d).  And it allowed him to offer the Court docket a foundation on which to estimate a minimal quantity of losses.  With out the On line casino participant card studies, Mr. Brilliant would have a a lot worse consequence.

Remark — A New Thought of Session?  I fairly like Choose Buch’s per-On line casino method as a result of it makes use of an idea of “session” that allows annual netting.  Nevertheless it’s not simply netting every little thing towards every little thing, just like the Shollenbergers needed to do.  It as an alternative creates completely different classes for various institutions.  That doesn’t render §165(d) ineffective since you nonetheless have a set of good points from wagering transactions the place you’re a web winner at one institution, and you’ve got losses from wagering transactions at different institutions.  Thus, reasonably than tying the idea of session to an arbitrary 24-hour time interval, this idea makes use of the statutory time interval of the tax yr.  Beneath this methodology you are taking your web losses for the yr at an institution and add to that any good points to come back to a complete loss determine which you’ll then apply towards wagering good points.

I acknowledge Choose Buch is utilizing this method to guestimate wagering losses, however I feel it will work equally effectively for establishing wagering good points, at the very least when utilizing On line casino participant playing cards.  As I clarify in my Taxation of Digital Gaming article, all quantities inside a On line casino participant account are greatest considered as “play cash.”  Actually they’re numbers that merely observe the quantity of play the taxpayer enjoys.  They don’t seem to be precise {dollars} till such time because the taxpayer cashes out.  Fortunate or skillful taxpayers get extra play for his or her preliminary deposits, however that doesn’t make it earnings.  It’s simply extra consumption on the similar price.  On the finish of the yr they need to not need to report any wagering good points if all they’ve accomplished it put cash into their participant account in the course of the yr, they usually finish the yr with much less in that account than what that they had initially.  If, nevertheless, they’re just like the Shollenbergers they usually money out their participant account after any given On line casino journey, then to the extent they money out for greater than they put in year-to-date, they’ve a wagering acquire to report as earnings.  And in the event that they finish the yr with a surplus of their participant account over what they put in, then the constructive receipt doctrine would require them to report that as earnings.  Thus, as utilized to this case, I’d use that concept to argue over the correct quantity of Mr. Brilliant’s wagering good points reasonably than over the correct quantity of his wagering losses.  To me, the 24 W-2Gs didn’t mirror wagering good points.  They mirrored funds, certain.  However whether or not they have been wagering good points will depend on the related session calculation.  And with a participant card account, you may determine that out from the On line casino data.  As common, I welcome feedback on this concept from people who truly symbolize gamblers.  

[Editor’s Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to each Lesson From The Tax Court and other tax posts on TaxProf Blog, email here.]

Bryan Camp is the George H. Mahon Professor of Regulation at Texas Tech College College of Regulation.  He invitations readers to return every Monday (or Tuesday if Monday is a federal vacation) to TaxProf Weblog for an additional Lesson From The Tax Court docket.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/05/lesson-from-the-tax-court-substantiating-gambling-losses-on-per-casino-basis.html