Taxation on Poker Tournament
if a taxpayer enters a poker tournament and they qualified as if it is lost from poker tournament, should these loss treat as regular gambling lost? or should the extent of winnings be treated as sporting event and deduct above the line in full. The essay should include: 1. George E. and Gloria Tschetschot v. Commissioner., U.S. Tax Court, CCH Dec. 56,840(M), T.C. Memo. 2007-38, 93 T.C.M. 914, (Feb. 20, 2007) 2.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs DIANE A. DENT, Defendant; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs WALTER WATKINS, Defendant CASE NO: 733 OF 2008, CASE NO: 746 OF 2008 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION 2009 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 146 The essay should include abstract, introduction, conclusion and reference four parts. Abstract part should include a summary of George E. and Gloria Tschetschot v. Commissioner., U.S. Tax Court, CCH Dec. 56,840(M), T.C. Memo. 2007-38, 93 T.C.M. 914, (Feb. 20, 2007)
TAXATION ON POKER TOURNAMENT Name: Grade Course: Tutor`s Name: (13, December, 2010) Taxation on Poker Tournament Abstract Gambling has been meet with mixed reaction; that of being a game of chance or skills. It is worth noting that since the enactment of tax provision that concerns wagering, tournament pokers has tremendously change and televised across the country (Garcia, 2010). Two notable cases concerning poker tournament include that of George E. and Gloria Tschetschot v. Commissioner and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Diane A. Dent. In the first case (George E. and Gloria Tschetschot v. Commissioner), the court rejected George and Gloria arguments that tournament poker is not a gambling or wagering game but rather an entertainment and professional sport. It was held that there were no meaningful differences that could warrant different treatment in terms of taxation. The two arguments for poker tournament to be treated as any other tournament sports for instance tennis and golf was rejected. Wagering and gambling is treated by congress differently from other business does not go against of equal protection. The losses were thus limited by code Sec. 165 to the amount of what she could have won from the tournament. Lack of clear demonstration that they acted in good faith or there was a reasonable cause for understatement, constitute to accuracy related penalty (George E. and Gloria Tschetschot v. Commissioner, 2007). In the trials, it was held that Georg...