Hochman v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
P was a casual, i.e., nonprofessional gambler, whose gambling losses exceeded his winnings in 1980. He was also a taxpayer who could be claimed as a dependent on the return of another. Held, P's gambling losses are items of itemized deduction, limited as provided in sec. 165(d), I.R.C.Held further, P was entitled neither to the zero-bracket amount nor to any itemized deductions in computing his taxable income, under sec. 63, I.R.C., under the facts of this case.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVID HOCHMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Hochman v. Commissioner
Docket No. 25862-83.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1986-24; 1986 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 580; 51 T.C.M. (CCH) 311; T.C.M. (RIA) 86024;
January 22, 1986.
P was a casual, i.e., nonprofessional gambler, whose gambling losses exceeded his winnings in 1980. He was also a taxpayer who could be claimed as a dependent on the return of another. Held, P's gambling losses are items of itemized deduction, limited as provided in sec. 165(d), I.R.C.Held further, P was entitled neither to the zero-bracket amount nor…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Eisner v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Sullenger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Byrd v. HamerAppellate Court of Illinois · 2011
- Berardi v. Internal Revenue Service Frederick L. ReigleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003