16 T.C. 1214 | Tax Ct. | 1951
Lead Opinion
OPINION.
It would be easy to extend the scope of. tliis controversy to take in a wide range of subject matter. As presented, however, it is narrowly limited and we propose to restrict our consideration accordingly.
The .single issue, with which we are required, to deal is -in essence whether a professional gambler may deduct gambling losses exceeding gambling gains, although concededly another taxpayer not regularly engaged in gambling as a business, hut undertaking gambling ventures for profit, could not do so.
We are not here confronted with the problem of whether the specific provision as to gambling losses
Indeed, after the submission of this proceeding the Court of Claims decided Skeeles v. United States, 95 F. Supp. 242. In that case, as in this one, the question of deductibility by a professional gambler of wagéring losses as' a carry-over and carry-back,was involved. It was held that neither was permissible under section 23 (h). The parties expressly agree that the purpose and effect of that provision is to require- consonant treatment for legal and illegal transactions,
Reviewed by the Court.
Decision will be entered, for the respondent.
Petitioner’s brief:
It seems obvious that the only change made in the law with respect to gambling losses was to remove the difference in the treatment for tax purposes between legal losses and illegal losses. • » «
Respondent's brief:
* * * the purpose and intent of Congress in enacting See. 23 <h) was to provide a restrictive treatment of wagering losses as a class which would eliminate the theretofore existing distinction between legal and illegal wagering. • * «