Zarin v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
P, a compulsive gambler, gambled on credit extended by a New Jersey casino. During the following year, P and the casino settled the debt at a substantial discount. Held, the difference between the face amount of the debt and the amount for which it was settled constitutes income from the discharge of indebtedness. Sec. 61(a)(12), I.R.C. 1954.
1Dissent
Ruwe J.,
dissenting: Although I agree with much of the majority’s reasoning in this case, I dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds that section 108(e)(5) is inapplicable to the transaction at issue. I find no support in the language of the statute or the accompanying legislative history for the majority’s determination that the gambling chips purchased by petitioner do not constitute “property” for purposes of section 108(e)(5). Because I believe that petitioner acquired “property” from the casino on credit and subsequently negotiated a reduction of his debt to the casino, I…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Watt v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Edwards v. AguillardSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Barry v. BarchiSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.