Purpose

This document provides guidance interpreting the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act ('BSA') regulations¹ as they apply to the casino and card club industries in the United States.

Section A: 31 C.F.R. § 103.11 Casino and Card Club Definitions²

Question 1: What gaming institutions are subject to the BSA casino regulatory requirements?

Answer 1: A casino or a card club that is duly licensed or authorized to do business as such, and has gross annual gaming revenue in excess of $1 million, is a 'financial institution' under the BSA. The definition applies to both land-based and riverboat operations licensed or authorized under the laws of a state, territory,³ or tribal jurisdiction, or under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.⁴ Tribal gaming establishments that offer slot machines, video lottery terminals, or table games,⁵ and that have gross annual gaming revenue in excess of $1 million are covered by the definitions. Card clubs generally are subject to the same rules as casinos, unless a different treatment for card clubs is explicitly stated in 31 C.F.R. Part 103.

Question 2: Is a tribal gaming establishment that offers only bingo and related games considered a casino for purposes of the BSA?

Answer 2: No. FinCEN has the authority under the BSA to define as 'casinos' tribal gaming establishments that offer only bingo and related games. Nevertheless, in addressing the treatment of tribal gaming under the BSA, we have indicated that 'activities such as bingo . . . are not generally offered in casino-like settings and may create different problems for law enforcement, tax compliance, and anti-money laundering programs than do full-scale casino operations.'⁶ FinCEN does not view tribal gaming establishments that offer only traditional bingo (i.e., not contained in electronic gaming devices) and related games in non-casino settings as satisfying the definition of 'casino' for purposes of the BSA.

95 helpful votes. Re: Tax win/loss statements from the casino. The win/loss statement will record all the play registered on slots/vp when your card is inserted. If you have a Total Rewards account, you can probably access your win/loss statements from previous years. Deducting Losses. The IRS will let you deduct all of your gambling losses up to the amount that you report as winnings. If you win $150,000 in the lottery and you have $50,000 in losses from bad lottery tickets and a few very unlucky hands of blackjack, you can write off all $50,000 in losses, offsetting an equal amount of your winnings. Yes, even if you only win $10 sports gambling, you still technically have to report it (even if the casino didn’t). Gambling income plus your job income (and any other income) equals your total income. Fortunately, you do not necessarily have to pay taxes on all your winnings.

However, a tribal gaming establishment that offers both bingo and slot machines or table games, for example, would satisfy the definition of 'casino,' if gross annual gaming revenue exceeds $1 million. All gaming activity must go into the calculation of gross annual gaming revenue, including activity that standing alone would not transform an establishment into a casino. This is the same treatment that FinCEN applies to a state-licensed casino that offers poker (which is a non-house banked game) since poker and a poker room are an integral part of a casino operation.⁷

Question 3: Is a 'racino' considered a gaming institution subject to the BSA?

Answer 3: The term 'racino' has not been separately defined nor included specifically in the definition of casino for purposes of the BSA. In general, the term refers to horse racetracks that may be authorized under state law to engage in or offer a variety of collateral gaming operations, including slot machines, video lottery terminals, video poker or card clubs. FinCEN relies on the state, territory or tribal characterization of 'racino' gaming in determining whether an entity or operation should be treated as a casino for purposes of the BSA. If state law defines or characterizes slot machine or video lottery operation at a racetrack as a 'casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment,' and the gross annual gaming revenues of that operation exceed the $1 million threshold, then the operation would be deemed to be a 'casino' for purposes of the BSA and subject to all applicable requirements.⁸

Question 4: Would a race book or sports pool operator that has a 'nonrestricted' Nevada gaming license be considered a casino for purposes of the BSA?

Answer 4: Yes. Operators or owners of a Nevada race book or sports pool,⁹ that are duly issued a 'nonrestricted' Nevada gaming license,¹⁰ and that have gross annual gaming revenues in excess of $1 million are subject to the casino requirements under 31 C.F.R. Part 103, as well as all other applicable BSA requirements. This would include a Nevada race book or sports pool licensee that obtained a 'nonrestricted' gaming license to operate a race book or sports pool on the property of another casino, or that operates a number of satellite race books and sports pools that are affiliated with a central site book.

Question 5: Is an establishment that offers only off-track betting on horse races considered a casino for purposes of the BSA?

Answer 5: In addressing the treatment of tribal gaming under the BSA, we have indicated that 'pari-mutuel wagering' should receive the same treatment as bingo when determining whether an establishment satisfies the definition of 'casino.' ¹¹ Furthermore, Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act includes off-track betting on horse races.¹² In addition, in Nevada, an establishment that offers only off-track betting on horse races would need to obtain a non-restricted gaming license. In many instances, off-track betting on horse races will involve pari-mutuel wagering. However, pari-mutuel wagering also applies to sporting events. For purposes of the BSA, FinCEN views casinos to include establishments in Nevada and in tribal jurisdictions that offer only off-track betting, provided the establishments permit account wagering and provided gross annual gaming revenue exceeds $1 million.¹³ In many instances, off-track betting will involve accounts through which customers may conduct a variety of transactions, including wagers, deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of funds. As we recognized when addressing the treatment of tribal gaming under our rules, FinCEN has sought to apply the BSA to 'gaming establishments that provide both gaming and an array of financial services for their patrons.'¹⁴

Question 6: Are 'greyhound racing clubs' that offer table games considered gaming institutions for purposes of the BSA?

Answer 6: If a 'greyhound racing club'¹⁵ generates gross annual gaming revenue in excess of $1 million from poker tables (which would be akin to offering card games in a card club or card room type operation), and if the gaming facility is duly licensed or authorized by a state or local government to do business as a card club, gaming club, card room, gaming room, or similar gaming establishment, it would be subject to the BSA.¹⁶ Therefore, once the $1 million in revenue threshold is exceeded for such poker tables, all gaming activity must go into the calculation of gross annual gaming revenue, including activity that standing alone would not deem an establishment a casino, such as greyhound racing at the track, simulcast for other greyhound racing tracks, simulcast for horse racing tracks, or simulcast for jai alai.

Question 7: Are horse racetracks that offer pari-mutuel or other forms of wagering only on races held at the track considered casinos for purposes of the BSA?

Answer 7: FinCEN does not view a horse racetrack that offers pari-mutuel or other forms of wagering only on races held at the track as a casino for purposes of the BSA. We believe that, under these circumstances, wagering is integral to hosting the race itself. Horse racing as an industry poses 'different problems for law enforcement, tax compliance, and anti-money laundering programs than do full-scale casino operations.'¹⁷

Section B: 31 C.F.R. § 103.22 Currency Transaction Reporting Requirements¹⁸

Question 8: Is a casino required to provide identification information on customers who have conducted reportable multiple currency transactions that were summarized through 'after the fact aggregation?'

Answer 8: The process of checking internal casino computer information, rating cards, general ledgers, and other books and records after the end of the gaming day to find reportable currency transactions is sometimes referred to as 'after the fact aggregation.' After the fact aggregation of currency transactions does not relieve a casino of the requirement to file a FinCEN Form 103 Currency Transaction Report by Casinos ('CTRC') on reportable multiple transactions containing all information required when it has the ability to obtain customer identification information through reviewing internal records in paper or electronic form or through automated data processing systems. The anti-money laundering compliance program requirement obligates a casino or card club to use all available information to determine a customer's name, address, and Social Security number¹⁹ from any existing information system or other system of records for a reportable multiple transaction summarized through 'after the fact aggregation' when a customer is no longer available.²⁰ Also, for casinos or card clubs with automated data processing systems, programs for compliance with the BSA must provide for the use of these systems to aid in assuring compliance.²¹

Therefore, when a casino or card club cannot obtain identification information on reportable multiple transactions because a customer is no longer available, it must check its internal records or systems, including federal forms and records, which contain verified customer information. These records may include credit, deposit, or check cashing account records, or a previously filed CTRC form, IRS Form W-2G (Certain Gambling Winnings), or any other tax or other form containing such customer information. If a casino files a CTRC form lacking some customer identification information in situations described above, it would be required to file an amended CTRC with new identification information on the initial transaction if the customer returns and conducts new transactions of which a casino obtains knowledge.²²

Question 9: Is a casino required to use customer currency transaction information contained in the casino's slot monitoring system for purposes of BSA currency transaction reporting?

Answer 9: For purpose of the BSA, FinCEN does not view customer 'coin-in' and 'coin-out'²³ transactions at a slot machine or video lottery terminal to be reportable as currency transactions because they can represent so-called 'recycled' coin transactions (i.e., casino customers typically engaging in transactions deriving from the same coins just won at electronic gaming devices). If a casino were to use 'coin-in' and 'coin-out' information in its slot monitoring system, it would distort and result in incorrect reporting of currency transactions. However, when a casino has knowledge of customer 'paper money' transactions for slot club accountholders identified through its slot monitoring system, it must aggregate these with other types of 'cash in' transactions of which the casino has knowledge and which are recorded on a casino's books and records to determine whether the currency transactions exceed $10,000 for a customer in a gaming day.²⁴ When a casino has knowledge of multiple currency transactions conducted by or on behalf of the same customer on the same day, it is required to treat those multiple transactions as a single reportable transaction for purposes of determining whether currency transaction reporting requirements have been met. Therefore, the conclusions that apply to the aggregation of two or more transactions involving the insertion of bills into slot machines also would apply to the aggregation of such transactions with other categories of 'cash in' transactions.

It is not necessary to have personally observed the transactions; knowledge can also be acquired from a casino examining the books, records, logs, computer files, etc., that contain information that the currency transactions have occurred after the gaming day is over. Although FinCEN regulations impose no requirement to examine books or records merely for purposes of aggregating transactions in currency and determining whether to file a report on FinCEN Form 103, BSA requirements other than the requirement to report transactions in currency may obligate a casino to examine computerized records. A casino must report transactions that the casino 'knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect' are suspicious and implement procedures reasonably designed to assure the detection and proper reporting of suspicious transactions.²⁵ For casinos with automated data processing systems, automated programs for compliance with the BSA must provide for the use of these systems to aid in assuring compliance,²⁶ including identifying transactions that appear to be suspicious conducted by customers using their magnetic club account cards at slot machines or video lottery terminals.²⁷

Also, casinos should note that activities such as: (i) 'turning off the dollar counter' to prevent obtaining knowledge of reportable transactions (i.e., not using the feature that is readily available in its software program that accumulates U.S. dollars that a customer inserts into a slot machine bill acceptor while using a magnetic slot club account card), or (ii) requesting that a vendor remove a software tool or interface capability from its next software upgrade could result in enforcement action under the BSA.²⁸

Question 10: Is a cash wager/bet that is ultimately lost at a table game considered a transaction in currency for purposes of BSA currency transaction reporting?

Answer 10: Casinos are required under BSA regulations to file currency transaction reports for 'cash in' transactions, which include 'bets of currency.' For purposes of the currency transaction reporting requirements, a cash bet (referred to as a 'money play')²⁹ at a table game would become a 'bet of currency' once the customer can no longer retrieve the bet (e.g., once the dealer has dealt the cards). The cash wager would be a 'cash in' transaction for purposes of currency transaction reporting regardless of whether the customer subsequently wins or loses the wager.³⁰

However, money plays are exempted as reportable cash in transactions to the extent the customer wagers the same physical currency that the customer wagered on a prior money play on the same table game, and the customer has not departed from the table.³¹ Also, money plays are exempted as reportable cash out transactions when the currency used to place the wager is the same physical currency received when the customer wins the bet.³²

Question 11: Is a card club required to maintain and retain records of all currency transactions by customers pertaining to backline betting for purposes of currency transaction reporting?

Answer 11: Yes. The BSA requires card clubs to maintain and to retain the original or a microfilm copy of records of all currency transactions by customers, including without limitation, records in the form of currency transaction logs and multiple currency transaction logs.³³ This requirement applies to card clubs³⁴ that offer the practice of backline betting. Backline betting occurs when a customer, who is standing behind a seated player, places a bet or wager on the betting circle for a specific hand on which a seated player also is wagering. The extra players that stand behind each seat position are known as 'backline betters.' Although backline betting makes it difficult to track customer wagers at the gaming table, a card club must have a procedure in place to identify such transactions for purposes of filing a FinCEN Form 103 (CTRC).³⁵

A card club must have procedures for using all available information to determine and verify, when required, the name, address, social security or taxpayer identification number, and other identifying information for a person.³⁶ In addition, a card club employee or propositional player³⁷ who obtains actual knowledge (i.e., direct and clear awareness of a fact or condition) of unknown customers exchanging currency and chips with each other during poker/card game play in excess of $10,000 in currency, through a single transaction or through a series of transactions in a gaming day, would be required to comply with suspicious activity reporting.

In addition, the BSA requires card clubs to prepare a record of any transaction required to be retained, if the record is not otherwise produced in the ordinary course of business.³⁸ Therefore, when a card club employee or propositional player monitoring a non-house banked card game has obtained actual knowledge of a reportable currency transaction, he/she is required to produce a record of the transaction for purposes of currency transaction reporting and a card club must retain such record for a period of five years.

Question 12: Is a casino required to file FinCEN Form 103 (CTRC) on slot jackpot wins in excess of $10,000 in currency?

Answer 12: FinCEN no longer requires a casino to file a FinCEN Form 103 (CTRC), when it has knowledge of customer slot jackpot wins involving payment in currency in excess of $10,000 (e.g., through a single transaction or through aggregating transactions on multiple transaction logs, W-2G issued log). This BSA currency reporting requirement was amended by 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(b)(2)(iii)(D), which removed jackpots from slot machines or video lottery terminals from the definition of 'cash out' transactions.³⁹

Question 13: In the instructions to FinCEN Form 103, what does the word 'periodically' mean when updating customer identification information for casino customers granted accounts for credit, deposit, or check cashing, or for whom a CTRC containing verified identity has been filed?

Answer 13: The General Instructions to FinCEN Form 103 (CTRC), under 'Identification requirements' state:

For casino customers granted accounts for credit, deposit, or check cashing, or on whom a CTRC containing verified identity has been filed, acceptable identification information obtained previously and maintained in the casino's internal records may be used as long as the following conditions are met. The customer's identity is reverified periodically, any out-of-date identifying information is updated in the internal records, and the date of each reverification is noted on the internal record. For example, if documents verifying an individual's identity were examined and recorded on a signature card when a deposit or credit account was opened, the casino may rely on that information as long as it is reverified periodically.

As part of the requirement to establish an effective system of internal controls,⁴⁰ a casino or card club must determine how often it will reverify a customer's identity to update the identifying information in the internal record for purposes of currency transaction reporting. Given this requirement, it is a common business practice for casinos to maintain a 'known customer' file containing a customer's name, address and identification credential that it has previously verified.⁴¹ Accordingly, a casino or card club checks Item 27b on FinCEN Form 103 to indicate that it has examined an acceptable internal casino record (i.e., credit, deposit, or check cashing account record, or a CTRC worksheet) containing previously verified identification information on a 'known customer.' There is no fixed period that will apply to all casinos for all types of customers. The purpose of this requirement is to keep customer identification information reasonably current. Hence, a casino should develop its own policies based on its own experiences with how often relevant customer information, such as permanent address or last name, might change.

Section C: 31 C.F.R. § 103.21 Suspicious Transaction Reporting Requirements

Question 14: How comprehensive must a casino's procedures be for detecting suspicious activity?

Answer 14: A casino or card club is responsible for establishing and implementing risk-based internal controls (i.e., policies, procedures and processes) to comply with the BSA⁴² and to safeguard its operations from money laundering and terrorist financing, including for detecting, analyzing and reporting potentially suspicious activity. A casino or card club is required to file a suspicious activity report for a transaction when it knows, suspects or has reason to suspect that the transaction or pattern of transactions (conducted or attempted) is both suspicious, and involves $5,000 or more (in the single event or when aggregated) in funds or other assets. The extent and specific parameters under which a casino or card club must monitor customer accounts⁴³ and transactions for suspicious activity must factor in the type of products and services it offers, the locations it serves, and the nature of its customers. In other words, suspicious activity monitoring and reporting systems cannot be 'one size fits all.'

As part of its internal controls, a casino or card club must establish procedures for using all available information, including its automated systems⁴⁴ and its surveillance system and surveillance logs, to determine the occurrence of any transactions or patterns of transactions required to be reported as suspicious.⁴⁵ Also, a casino or card club must perform appropriate due diligence in response to indicia of suspicious transactions, using all available information. Please note that a casino or card club must train personnel in the identification of unusual or suspicious transactions.⁴⁶

Question 15: How can a casino complete suspicious activity reporting ('SAR') for 'unknown' subjects?

Answer 15: Since a casino or a card club is prohibited from disclosing to a customer involved in a suspicious activity that it filed a FinCEN Form 102, Suspicious Activity Report by Casinos and Card Clubs ('SARC'), FinCEN advises using internal records that contain verified customer identification information when filing this form. Such records may include credit, deposit, or check cashing account records or any filed FinCEN Form 103 (CTRC), FinCEN Form 103-N, Currency Transaction Report by Casinos - Nevada, IRS Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings, or IRS Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification.

If the above records or reports do not exist or if additional customer identification information is needed to complete the form, FinCEN advises casinos and card clubs to use any other records that may be on file which contain verified identification such as a driver's license, military or military dependent identification cards, passport, non-resident alien registration card, state issued identification card, foreign national identity card (e.g., cedular card), other government-issued document evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard, or a combination of other unexpired documents, which contain an individual's name and address and preferably a photograph. If casinos or card clubs do not have verified identification information on the customer, they should use whatever other sources of customer information are available within internal records, such as player rating records, slot club membership records, a filed IRS Form 1099-Misc, Miscellaneous Income (e.g., pertaining to prizes or awards), or a filed IRS Form 1042-S, Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding, etc.

If no suspect is identified on the date of detection, a casino or card club may delay filing a SARC form for an additional 30 calendar days to identify a suspect. However, a casino or card club must in all events report a suspicious transaction within 60 calendar days after the date of initial detection (regardless of whether a casino or card club is able to identify a suspect).

Question 16: Must a casino identify suspicious customer chip redemptions at a cage for reporting on FinCEN Form 102 (SARC)?

Answer 16: A casino must implement procedures reasonably designed to assure the detection and proper reporting of suspicious transactions.⁴⁷ Also, a casino shall file a report of each transaction in currency involving cash out of more than $10,000 in a gaming day in which it has obtained knowledge including the redemption of chips.⁴⁸ A casino, which is not required by state or tribal regulations to maintain multiple currency transaction logs or currency transaction logs at the casino cage,⁴⁹ nonetheless should develop an internal control⁵⁰ based on a risk analysis to be able to identify chip redemptions that were paid with currency from the imprest drawer⁵¹ to a customer⁵² that involve potential suspicious transactions to assure ongoing BSA compliance. Such an internal control would aid such casinos in monitoring chip redemptions for 'unknown' customers who previously purchased chips and then engaged in minimal or no gaming activity for purposes of suspicious activity reporting.⁵³ As a corollary, a casino should develop an internal control, based on a risk analysis, to be able to identify betting ticket,⁵⁴ token,⁵⁵ and TITO ticket⁵⁶ redemptions that were paid with currency from an imprest drawer to a customer that involve potential suspicious transactions to assure ongoing BSA compliance.

Moreover, the BSA requires casinos to prepare and retain a record of any transaction that is not otherwise produced in the ordinary course of business to comply with these regulations.⁵⁷ Also, records must in all events be filed or stored in such a way as to be accessible within a reasonable period of time.⁵⁸ A casino must retain such record of the transaction for a period of five years.

Question 17: What type of information has law enforcement found to have particular value on FinCEN Form 102 (SARC)?

Answer 17: Casinos and card clubs should note the type of information contained on a FinCEN Form 102 (SARC) that law enforcement has advised is the most valuable to them, and which, if missing, limits the effectiveness for law enforcement use.

• Provide complete subject identifying information, such as name, permanent address, government-issued identification number, date of birth, and casino account number.
• Identify the characterization of suspicious activity by checking Item 26 on the form and refrain from checking the 'other' box unless the activity is not covered by the existing list of suspicious activities.
• Prepare a concise and clear narrative that provides a complete description of the suspicious activity. The following are several things to consider when a casino or card club reviews a SARC's narrative (i.e., Part VI) to ensure it is concise and clear:
  • - Provides a detailed description of the suspicious activity.
  • - Narrative should not state, 'see attached.'
  • - Identifies 'who,' 'what,' 'when,' 'why,' 'where,' and 'how.'
  • - Identifies whether the transaction was attempted or completed.
  • - Is chronological and complete.
  • - Identifies the dates of any previously filed Form 102 on the same subject.
  • - Notes any actions (taken or planned) by the casino, including any internal investigative numbers used by the casino to maintain records of the suspicious activity.
• Include contact information for persons at the casino with additional information about the suspicious activity.

For additional guidance on providing a clear and complete description of the suspicious activity, see FinCEN's Suspicious Activity Reporting Guidance for Casinos.

Question 18: Should a casino or card club document the basis for its determination that a transaction is not suspicious?

Answer 18: If a casino determines that an activity is suspicious, it must file FinCEN Form 102 (SARC). However, based on the available facts and after an initial investigation, a casino may determine that certain unusual activity is not suspicious. Although 31 C.F.R. § 103.21 does not specifically state that a casino or a card club must document the reasons why it has not filed FinCEN Form 102 for a particular activity that was reviewed as potentially suspicious, it is an effective practice for a casino or card club to document the basis for its determination that the transaction is not, after all, suspicious.⁵⁹

Thorough documentation provides a record of the decision-making process (including the final decisions not to file a SARC) which a casino or card club would find helpful to: (i) assist internal or external auditors and examiners in their assessment of the effectiveness of its suspicious activity reporting and monitoring and reporting system, (ii) assist its internal review committee⁶⁰ in making future decisions on what should be reported as suspicious, (iii) train employees about what transactions are suspicious and which are not suspicious based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, (iv) respond to a potential law enforcement subpoena pertaining to a particular customer whose activity was reviewed by the committee, but considered not to be suspicious, and (v) if it has multiple casino properties in the same jurisdiction, ensure that reasonably consistent suspicious activity reporting risk-based analysis procedures are being followed.

Section D: 31 C.F.R. § 103.36 Casino Recordkeeping Requirements

Question 19: What specific recordkeeping requirements apply to a casino?

Answer 19: 31 C.F.R. § 103.36 requires a casino or card club to maintain and to retain the following source records (either the originals or microfilm version, or other copies or reproductions of the documents) that relate to its operation:

• Records of each deposit of funds, account opened or line of credit extended, including a customer's identification and the verification of that identification as well as similar information for other persons having a financial interest in the account, regardless of residency;
• Records of each receipt showing transactions for or through each customer's deposit or credit account, including a customer's identification and the verification of that identification, regardless of residency;
• Records of each bookkeeping entry comprising a debit or credit to a deposit account or credit account;
• Statements, ledger cards or other records of each deposit or credit account, showing each transaction in or with respect to the deposit or credit account;
• Records of each extension of credit in excess of $2,500, including a customer's identification and the verification of that identification, regardless of residency;
• Records of each advice, request or instruction with respect to a transaction of any monetary value involving persons, accounts or places outside the United States, including customer identification, regardless of residency;
• Records prepared or received in the ordinary course of business that would be needed to reconstruct a customer's deposit or credit account;
• Records required by other governmental agencies, e.g., federal, state, local or tribal;
• A list of transactions involving various types of instruments, cashed or disbursed, in face amounts of $3,000 or more, regardless of whether currency is involved, including customer's name and address; and
• A copy of the compliance program required by 31 C.F.R. § 103.64.

Also, card clubs are required to maintain and to retain records of all currency transactions by customers, including, without limitation, records in the form of currency transaction logs and multiple currency transaction logs.

Besides the above casino-specific requirements, there are other BSA recordkeeping requirements that apply to all financial institutions, including casinos and card clubs, such as:

• Records by persons having financial interests in foreign financial accounts;⁶¹
• Records of transmittals of funds in excess of $3,000 requiring the verification of identity, and the recording, retrievability and reporting of information to other financial institutions in the payment chain, regardless of the method of payment;⁶² and
• Nature of records, record access, and five-year retention period for records.⁶³

Question 20: What computer records must a casino retain?

Answer 20: A casino or card club that inputs, stores, or retains, in whole or in part, for any period of time, any record required to be maintained by 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.33 or 103.36(a) and (b) on computer disk, tape, or other machine-readable media shall retain the records in such media. Also, a casino or card club is required to maintain the indexes, books, file descriptions and programs that would enable a person readily to access and review these computer records. These computerized records, source documentation and related programs must be retained for a period of five years. However, the BSA does not require that computerized records be stored in on-line memory in a computer past their normal business use.⁶⁴ Nonetheless, records must in all events be filed or stored in such a way as to be accessible within a reasonable period of time,⁶⁵ taking into consideration the nature of the records and the length of time since the record was made.

A casino may not delete or destroy specific computerized customer gaming activity information (prior to the end of the five-year retention period), such as player rating records,⁶⁶ and instead only retain the more limited trip history records (which only summarize the total funds from a customer's multi-day trip and the most recent trips, usually between three and nine trips). Because a trip includes any number of continuous days of gaming activity in which there is not a break in play, the player trip history is only a limited summarized record that typically does not provide all of the information contained on the original rating card, such as the specific amounts of the customer's currency transactions conducted for each gaming day.

Further, the retention of computerized records does not relieve a casino from the obligation to retain any record required to be maintained by 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.33 or 103.36(a) and (b), which typically are the source documents (either the originals or microfilm version, or other copies or reproductions of the documents) of customers' transactions.

Section E: 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a) Compliance Program Requirements⁶⁷

Question 21: How comprehensive must an internal and/or external testing program be to assure and monitor compliance with the BSA?

Answer 21: A casino or card club must conduct internal and/or external testing for compliance with a scope and frequency commensurate with the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing it faces, as well as the products and services it provides, to determine if a casino's procedures are comprehensive enough to detect suspicious activity.⁶⁸

The primary objectives of the independent testing of the BSA compliance program are to determine whether: (i) the program is properly designed and operating effectively to comply with suspicious and currency transaction reporting, identification, recordkeeping, and record retention requirements; (ii) there are material weaknesses (e.g., inadequate training) and internal control deficiencies; (iii) testing of the program is based on risk assessment criteria designed to focus on money laundering and terrorist financing as well as the products and services provided; and (iv) there is adherence to BSA policy, procedures, and systems.

FinCEN is aware that some casinos conduct internal testing for BSA compliance on a regular basis as part of their annual internal audit plan. The testing provides an assessment of the level of BSA compliance. The internal audit report typically includes the scope, objectives, and findings of the audit as well as a response to any audit finding indicating the corrective action to be taken, the target date for completion, and the department head responsible for the corrective action. Other casinos and card clubs may hire independent certified public accountants for similar purposes.

A casino or card club needs to take corrective actions once becoming aware of weakness and deficiencies in its anti-money laundering compliance program, or any element thereof, that could or did result in failures to comply with BSA identification, reporting, recordkeeping, record retention as well as compliance program requirements. Violations of these regulatory requirements may result in both criminal and civil penalties.

Question 22: What type of compliance training program should be developed and what types of documentation should be maintained by a casino or card club to ensure that it has an adequate, accurate, and complete program?

Answer 22: One of the more important elements of the anti-money laundering compliance program is the obligation to institute an effective and ongoing training program for all appropriate casino or card club personnel. Such a compliance training program should be commensurate with the risks posed by the products and financial services provided. Training should be provided to all personnel before conducting financial transactions on behalf of a casino at the cage (including casino credit and slot booth), on the floor (including table games, keno, poker, other floor games, and slot machines/video lottery terminals), as well as those responsible for complying with BSA currency transaction and suspicious transaction reporting, identification, recordkeeping, and other compliance program requirements. Also, a casino or card club is required to maintain, and to retain, a copy of the compliance program documentation. This documentation should include all casino records, documents, and manuals substantiating the training program as well as the training of appropriate personnel.⁶⁹ The requirement is flexible and allows each compliance training program to depend on the characteristics of an individual casino. For example, a large casino having many table games, slot machines/video lottery terminals, and cage windows might need a more comprehensive training program than a small casino with no table games. A compliance procedures manual for employees should cover all applicable divisions or departments (e.g., table games, slot operations, keno, poker), other operational departments (e.g., cage operations, casino credit, slot booth), as well as other departmental functions (e.g., accounting, finance, information technology, marketing, surveillance).

Also, recordkeeping procedures should reflect the types of financial services provided. In addition, the training program should ensure that casino front-line employees, such as cage personnel (e.g., shift managers), cage cashiers, front window cashiers (i.e., general cashiers), pit personnel (e.g., pit bosses), floor persons (i.e., raters), dealers, and slot personnel (e.g., slot supervisors, slot attendants, slot cashiers, change persons) have appropriate training to detect the occurrence of unusual or suspicious casino transactions.

Question 23: What does the requirement mean that casinos that have automated data processing systems must use their automated programs to aid in assuring compliance?

Answer 23: Casinos are required to 'develop and implement' written programs that are reasonably designed to assure BSA compliance with all applicable requirements.⁷⁰ Effective casino anti-money laundering compliance procedures should include identifying and using appropriate automated systems and programs⁷¹ for all applicable gambling operating divisions or departments (e.g., table games, slots, keno, poker), other operational departments (e.g., cage, slot booth), as well as other departmental functions (e.g., accounting, surveillance) to comply with suspicious activity and currency transaction reporting, as well as to maintain relevant records⁷² for casino accountholders.⁷³

Questions or comments regarding the contents of this Guidance should be addressed to the FinCEN Regulatory Helpline at 800-949-2732.

¹See 31 C.F.R. Part 103.

²See 31 U.S.C. § 5312(a)(2)(X) and 31 C.F.R. § 103.11(n)(5)(i) and (n)(6)(i).

³This includes casinos located in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands), and Tinian (Northern Mariana Islands). See 31 C.F.R. § 103.11(tt).

⁴The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is codified at 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

⁵Slot machines, video lottery terminals, and house-banked table games would qualify as Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Bingo and related games, including pull tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo and some card games, would qualify as Class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

⁶See 61 F.R. 7054 - 7056 (February 23, 1996).

⁷Id.

⁸A similar conclusion would apply to 'racinos' operating in tribal jurisdictions. Slot machines, table games, and similar forms of gaming would qualify as either Class II or Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

⁹The Nevada Gaming Commission issues 'nonrestricted' gaming licenses to operators or owners of Nevada race book or sports pools. See Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 22.020. A Nevada race book 'means the business of accepting wagers upon the outcome of any event held at a track which uses the pari-mutuel system of wagering.' See Nevada Revised Statute § 463.01855. A Nevada race book is a business that accepts wagers at fixed odds (or track odds) based on the outcome of the race that may be televised and displayed in Nevada casinos (i.e., 'simulcasting'). A Nevada sports pool 'means the business of accepting wagers on sporting events by any system or method of wagering.' See Nevada Revised Statute § 463.0193. A Nevada sports pool is a business that accepts wagers at fixed odds based on the outcome of certain professional and amateur athletic sporting events that may be televised and displayed in Nevada casinos.

¹⁰A Nevada 'nonrestricted license' includes, among other things, '. . . A license for, or operation of, any number of slot machines together with any other game, gaming device, race book or sports pool at one gaming establishment.' See Nevada Revised Statute § 463.0177(2). In addition, Nevada Revised Statute § 463.245(3) provides an exception to the prohibition against having more than one licensee issued to each casino. Also, see Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 22.010(4).

¹¹See 61 F.R. 7054 - 7056 (February 23, 1996).

¹²We have already addressed a situation in which an establishment operating in a tribal jurisdiction offers off-track betting on horse races and other Class III gaming. See In the Matter of the Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma and Edward E. Street - FinCEN No. 2006-1 (March 24, 2006).

¹³This discussion addresses off-track betting in Nevada and tribal jurisdictions only. Off-track betting may not require a gaming license in other jurisdictions. The definition of 'casino' includes only those establishments licensed or authorized to conduct business as casinos.

¹⁴See 61 F.R. 7054 - 7056 (February 23, 1996).

¹⁵A greyhound racing club is a gaming establishment that offers the sport of racing greyhounds. Specially trained dogs chase a lure (which is an artificial hare or rabbit) around an oval track until they arrive at the finish line. The dog that arrives first in each event is the winner of the bet.

¹⁶See 31 U.S.C. § 5312(a)(2)(X) and 31 C.F.R. § 103.11(n)(6)(i). The class of gaming establishments known as 'card clubs' became subject to the BSA as of August 1, 1998. See 63 F.R. 1919 - 1924 (Jan. 13, 1998).

¹⁷See 61 F.R. 7054 --7056 (February 23, 1996).

¹⁸See 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(b)(2) and (c)(3).

¹⁹See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(v)(A).

²⁰However, FinCEN does recognize that for certain aggregate currency transactions, a casino may not be able to obtain the required customer identification information because either the customer has left the casino and is no longer available or a casino does not have internal records which provide all of the required customer identification information.

²¹See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(vi).

²²See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.22(b)(2) and (c)(3), 103.27(a) and (d), and 103.28. Also, see FinCEN Form 103, Specific Instructions, Item 1, for filing an amended report.

²³Coin-in is a metered count of coins, credits and other amounts bet by customers at an electronic gaming device. Coin-out is a metered count of coins, credits and other amounts paid out to customers on winnings at an electronic gaming device. Therefore, coin-in does not include paper currency inserted into a bill acceptor (on slot machine or video lottery terminal) to accumulate credits.

²⁴See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.22(b)(2)(i)(I), (b)(2)(iii)(C), and (c)(3), and 103.64(b)(3) and (4).

²⁵See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.21 and 103.64(a)(2)(v)(B).

²⁶See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(vi).

²⁷Furthermore, as discussed in FinCEN Ruling 2005-1, measures that a casino could implement in response to a risk-based suspicious activity analysis could include enhancements to the operating system for slot machines. The enhancements could consist of new software tools/interfaces and reprogramming. A casino could develop the enhancements or have a vendor develop the enhancements.

²⁸See 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(1) and 31 C.F.R. § 103.57(f).

²⁹See 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(b)(2)(i)(E).

³⁰See FinCEN Administrative Ruling FIN-2006-R002, A Cash Wager on Table Game Play Represents a 'Bet of Currency' (March 24, 2006).

³¹Nonetheless, when a customer increases a subsequent cash bet (i.e., money play) at the same table without departing, the increase in the amount of the currency bet would represent a new bet of currency and a transaction in currency being monitored by a casino.

³²See 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(b)(2)(iii)(B) and 72 F.R. 35008 (June 26, 2007).

³³See 31 C.F.R. § 103.36(b)(11).

³⁴The card clubs operate or run the games and earn their revenue by receiving a fee from, rather than 'banking,' the games as casinos do. See 63 F.R. 1919 - 1924 (January 13, 1998). 31 C.F.R. § 103.116(n)(6)(i) defines a card club as a card club, gaming club, card room, gaming room, or similar gaming establishment.

³⁵See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.22(b)(2) and (c)(3), 103.28, and 103.64(a)(2)(i) and (b)(3) - (4).

³⁶See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(v)(A).

³⁷A propositional player is a natural person employed by a casino or card club to play a permissible game with his or her personal funds. A propositional player is paid a fixed sum by a casino or card club for playing in a poker/card game and retains any winnings and absorbs any losses. Also, a propositional player's function is to start and gamble at a poker/card game, to keep a sufficient number of players in a game, or to keep the action going in a game. Some card rooms have entered into contractual agreements with so-called 'third party provider[s] of propositional player services' to exclusively bank poker/card games as independent contractors, which introduces issues with assuring day-to-day BSA compliance with maintaining currency and cash equivalent records. An individual employed by such a service is called a 'third party propositional player' who gambles with funds provided by such a service.

³⁸See 31 C.F.R. § 103.38(b).

³⁹See 72 F.R. 35008 (June 26, 2007).

⁴⁰See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(i).

⁴¹Typically, these records contain the original method of identification (including type, number and expiration date, of the customer's identification credential originally examined) and the date of such examination as well as a photocopy or other reproduction (e.g., a computerized representation) of the identification credential. Some casinos maintain hard copy internal records and others digitized records containing identification information on a known customer.

⁴²See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.64(a) and 103.120(d).

⁴³Types of casino accounts that would be subject to suspicious activity reporting include deposit (i.e., safekeeping, front money or wagering), credit, check cashing, player rating or tracking, and slot club accounts.

⁴⁴See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(vi).

⁴⁵See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(v)(B).

⁴⁶See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(iii).

⁴⁷See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(v)(B).

⁴⁸See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.22(b)(2)(ii)(A) and (c)(3), and 103.64(b)(4).

⁴⁹Almost all casinos maintain multiple transaction logs ('MTLs') pursuant to state, tribal or local laws, or as unique business records. Casinos or card clubs record on these logs only currency transactions above a given threshold, usually $2,500 - $3,000. Also, some casinos have enhanced the existing MTL compliance procedure to require a surveillance photograph of each 'unknown' customer to assist in identifying customers for purposes of aggregating transactions for currency transaction reporting as well as potential suspicious transaction reporting.

⁵⁰See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(2)(i).

⁵¹Casinos and card clubs maintain cages where cashiers conduct financial transactions using a drawer that operates on an imprest basis or inventory. An imprest basis is a method of accounting for funds inventories whereby any replenishment or removal of funds is accounted for by an exchange of an exact amount of other funds in the inventory. The imprest drawer opens with a stated amount of currency and/or chips. Any subsequent additions or removal of funds in the drawer are accounted for by either a document or an exchange of an equal amount of funds of another form. Since chips and currency are fungible items no imprest records of these transactions are prepared or maintained.

⁵²For example, a known customer with a casino deposit (i.e., safekeeping, front money or wagering), credit, check cashing, player rating/player tracking, or slot club account.

⁵³See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.21 and 103.64(a)(2)(v)(B).

⁵⁴A betting ticket is a written record of a wager for a race or sporting event. It is printed with a unique ticket number and is used to record the event for which the wager was placed. It includes the name of the gambling establishment, race or sport event (e.g., race track, race number, horse identification), the amount of the wager, line or spread, and date and time. The gambling establishment provides a copy of the betting ticket to a customer and maintains a record of it.

⁵⁵A token is a gaming instrument or coin issued by a casino at certain stated denominations as a substitute for currency and used to play certain slot machines or video lottery terminals. Tokens are most often used for denominations of $1.00 or greater. Tokens represent a monetary value only within the casino and are intended for the purposes of gambling.

⁵⁶Slot machines or video lottery terminals that print tickets are commonly known as 'ticket in/ticket out' or 'TITO' machines. A TITO ticket is a gaming instrument issued by a slot machine or video lottery terminal to a customer as a record of the wagering transaction and/or substitute for currency. Tickets are voucher slips printed with the name and the address of the gaming establishment, the stated monetary value of the ticket, date and time, machine number (i.e., asset or location), an 18-digit validation number, and a unique bar code. Tickets are a casino bearer 'IOU' instrument. A customer can use a ticket at a machine or terminal that accepts tickets, or cash a ticket at a cage, slot booth, a redemption kiosk, or a pari-mutuel window at the gaming establishment.

⁵⁷31 C.F.R. § 103.38(b) states that 'records required by this subpart to be retained by financial institutions may be those made in the ordinary course of business by a financial institution. If no record is made in the ordinary course of business of any transaction with respect to which records are required to be retained by this subpart, then such a record shall be prepared in writing by the financial institution.'

⁵⁸See 31 C.F.R. § 103.38(d).

⁵⁹See FinCEN's Suspicious Activity Reporting Guidance for Casinos, December 2003, page 4.

⁶⁰ Many casinos have an internal SARC review committee.

⁶¹See 31 C.F.R. § 103.32.

⁶²See 31 C.F.R. § 103.33(f) and (g).

⁶³See 31 C.F.R. § 103.38.

⁶⁴For example, for casinos that maintain computerized records, such as daily player rating records, markers issued records, and cage voucher records for each customer deposit, deposit withdrawal and marker redemption, they may store such information on-line in computer memory or in off-line storage media, such as magnetic tape, magnetic disk, magnetic diskette, CD-ROM disk, etc.

⁶⁵See 31 C.F.R. § 103.38(d).

⁶⁶See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.36(b)(8) and 103.36(c), and F.R. 1165 - 1167 (January 12, 1989).

⁶⁷See 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.64 and 103.120(d).

⁶⁸See 31 C.F.R. § 103.21.

⁶⁹Such training program documentation would include any course outlines, the dates that training was provided, names of personnel who received training, any test that was administered, and the test results to allow internal and/or external examiners to evaluate the effectiveness of each training session.

⁷⁰See 31 C.F.R. § 103.64(a)(1).

⁷¹This would include gaming computer systems or other computer systems that interface with systems that track, control, or monitor customer gaming activity (e.g., a casino management system, a casino marketing system, a customer master file system, a credit management system).

⁷²See e.g., 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.21, 103.22(b)(2) and (c)(3), 103.33(f) and (g), and 103.36.

⁷³Many companies have developed casino management system software capable of identifying and aggregating customer transactions that are associated with casino accounts such as deposit (i.e., safekeeping, front money, or wagering), credit, check cashing, player rating or tracking, or slot club.

Executive Summary

• Most taxpayers believe gambling proceeds are immune from tax, unless they receive a Form W-2G.

• Each pull of a lever or push of a button on a slot machine, hand of blackjack or spin of a roulette wheel is an individual wager that may result in gambling winnings.

• To prove gambling losses and taxable income, taxpayers are subject to rules of proof, recordkeeping, estimating and credibility.

Report Money Lost At The Casino For Tax Purposes

Taxpayer-gamblers are not generally aware of the ease with which the IRS successfully counters attempts to offset gambling winnings with gambling losses. Often, gamblers are not concerned about the exact amount of gambling winnings they report, because they believe they have sufficient gambling losses to offset their winnings. The central issue raised by the Service on audit is not always the right to a deduction for gambling losses—allowed by Sec. 165(d)—but taxpayers’ inability to prove the amount of their gambling losses and, in particular, their basis in the losses claimed.

The Problem of Gambling Losses

A common scenario involves a taxpayer, as in Norgaard,1 who reports gambling winnings because a Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings, was issued. The fatal step is that the taxpayer dutifully reports the W-2G winnings, but fails to report any other winnings, however small. The IRS, on examination, questions the gambler about the possibility of any other winnings during the period. When the taxpayer admits to other winnings, the Service asserts that whatever the amount of the taxpayer’s losses, they were already used to offset the unreported winnings and, thus, are not available to offset the W-2G winnings. The Tax Court has accepted this position when the taxpayer failed to report gambling income in excess of W-2G winnings. The taxpayer must establish that claimed gambling losses exceed unreported gambling income, to be entitled to a deduction.2

When the IRS determines that a taxpayer’s income is incorrectly computed, he or she bears the burden of proving that the Service’s position is erroneous.3 In Mack,4 the Service successfully denied gambling losses, arguing that the taxpayer’s losses were already offset by winnings other than those reported on his return. In Lutz,5 the IRS conceded unproven gambling losses of $43,818.75 to the taxpayers, then asserted they were not entitled to a deduction, because those losses were less than the unreported gross gambling winnings omitted from the notice of deficiency. The court responded that, to establish their entitlement to deduct gambling losses from gross gambling income, the taxpayers had to show that their gambling losses exceeded the $50,995 of unreported gross gambling income not reflected in the notice of deficiency. This approach may save the Service from having to reconstruct a taxpayer’s unreported winnings, which can be daunting.6

A taxpayer’s logical response to the IRS should be to produce his or her books and records regarding the year’s gambling activities, as required by Rev. Proc. 77-29.7 This procedure requires taxpayer-gamblers to maintain an accurate diary or similar record, supplemented by verifiable documentation of wagering winnings and losses. The diary must contain the following information:

1. Date and type of specific wager or wagering activity;

2. Name and address or location of gambling establishment;

3. Name(s) of other person(s) (if any) present with the taxpayer at the gambling establishment; and

4. Amounts won or lost.

For slot machines, the Service further requires that a taxpayer record all winnings by date, time and slot machine number (see Exhibit 1). But because few taxpayers (especially recreational gamblers) maintain convincing records of their gambling activities, they can be left paying tax on their gross W-2G winnings, without any offset for gambling losses. Unreported W-2G winnings can also result in the imposition of penalties and interest.

In Kalisch,8 the taxpayer reported $41,979 in gambling income and claimed offsetting gambling losses in the same amount on his 1981 return. In its notice of deficiency, the IRS accepted the taxpayer’s income figure, but disallowed the deduction for gambling losses, because the taxpayer failed to substantiate them and because he had additional unreported winnings that exceeded his losses for the year. The court rejected the additional-income argument and allowed the loss deduction. Fortunately for taxpayers, the courts do not always agree with the Service’s reasoning.

A Growing Problem

What is the potential magnitude of this problem? Should practitioners and their clients be concerned? Part of the answer lies in the growing number of people participating in gambling. In 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that legalized gambling had spread to every state, except Utah and Hawaii.9 Legalized gambling in the U.S. has seen a steady increase since the advent of Indian tribal casinos and the subsequent legalization of casino gambling by states other than Nevada. Gaming revenue for 2002 totaled $68 billion (up from $30 billion in 1992, or 127%), while in 2003, it totaled $73 billion, rising 7.4% from the previous year.10 Of this total, $40 billion stems from casino revenue.11 In addition, for 2004 (the most recent data available), 1.7 million taxpayers reported gambling winnings to the IRS totaling $23.3 billion. This is up from the 1.5 million taxpayers in 2003 who reported winnings of $19 billion.12 An estimated 86% of Americans have participated in gambling in some form, and 63% reported gambling at least once in the past year.13 The number of individuals visiting casinos in 2003 was 53 million—more than one quarter of the U.S. adult population.14 Tax advisers should assume the same percentages apply to their clients, as gambling cuts across demographic and regional boundaries. As one tax observer recently noted, “Gambling is increasingly looked upon as a legitimate entertainment option akin to sporting events, the theater, and amusement parks.”15 What are the practical consequences of the spread of gambling?

As with other areas requiring recordkeeping (such as automobile mileage and entertainment), clients must be informed of the legal requirements for reporting gambling winnings, even if they erroneously believe they have no reportable winnings or they have sufficient gambling losses to offset them. It is crucial to determine gross gambling winnings and to separately establish the amount and basis for deducting gambling losses. As noted, the IRS wields a powerful argument in its arsenal; taxpayers and their advisers need to be educated.

Educating Clients

Education covers two fronts. First, which types or amounts of gambling winnings must be reported? The requirement to report gambling winnings (legal or illegal) at gross, even if the year’s net result is a loss, is not frequently recognized by taxpayers, including recreational gamblers. Gross gambling income is reported on page one of Form 1040, while gambling losses are a miscellaneous itemized deduction (not subject to the 2%-of-adjusted-gross-income (AGI) limit).

Taxpayers often believe their winnings are immune from reporting unless they receive a Form W-2G. In Hamilton,16 taxpayers failed to include $134,041 in lottery winnings in income on the grounds that they were neither professional nor part-time gamblers. The court disagreed, asserting that “an accession to wealth on account of gambling winnings is includable in an individual taxpayer’s gross income whether he or she is a professional gambler, a part-time gambler, or simply a onetime gambler.”

Taxpayers must also segregate winnings from losses to allow proper reporting. In Clemons,17 the taxpayer argued that his $44,833 in gambling winnings need not be included in gross income, because he had sufficient gambling losses to offset them. According to the court, the taxpayer “steadfastly rejects or ignores certain basic principles of the Federal income tax laws.” The taxpayer insisted on netting his winnings and losses and reporting only net winnings on his return.18

Once the need to report gambling, like any other form of income, is established and the corresponding requirement to segregate (as opposed to netting) winnings and losses is acknowledged, the next step is establishing a basis for gambling losses.

Tax Adviser’s Responsibility

Tax advisers need to recognize the pitfalls involved in determining the amount of gambling losses available to offset winnings. As most taxpayers do not keep sophisticated books and records of their gambling activity, the tax preparer is in a potentially perilous position when advising a client on documentation requirements for establishing gambling losses. If the taxpayer is reporting Form W-2G winnings (and no other gambling income), a preparer should not take a taxpayer’s word for the fact that he or she suffered sufficient offsetting losses without at least discussing the issue of documentation and the Service’s expectations in Rev. Proc. 77-29. The IRS and the courts, for example, view the documentation required for gambling no differently from that for employee business expenses, charitable donations, casualty losses and medical expenses. In Schooler,19 the court stated that there is no reason to treat taxpayers who claim deductions for wagering losses more favorably than other taxpayers by allowing a deduction for wagering losses when the evidence is inadequate.

Calculating Gambling Income

Sec. 165(d) allows a deduction for losses from wagering transactions only to the extent of gains therefrom.20 Gambling winnings are defined in Sec. 3402(q)(4)(A) as proceeds from a wager that is determined by reducing the amount received by the amount of the wager. Literally construed, this means that each pull of the lever or push of the button on a slot machine, hand of blackjack or spin of a roulette wheel is an individual wager that may result in gambling winnings.

The Service’s position is: “a gambling gain is the difference between wagering proceeds received and the amount wagered on a gambling transaction. I.R.C. section 1001(a) defines gain as [the] difference between amount realized and [the] adjusted basis.”21 However, the IRS also admits a problem with the position that the cost of a winning wager should be excluded from gross income. In determining what constitutes a winning wager, it concedes, '[t]here is a definitional problem of one gambling transaction.” (Emphasis added.) The Service’s guidance continues, “[a]lthough the purchase of a lottery ticket or a bet on a horse race seems to be an individual transaction, one hand of a poker game or one pull of the lever of a slot machine may not be one gambling transaction. This seems to be a factual issue which varies in accordance with the nature of the wager.” In Letter Ruling 8123015,22 the Service stated that a wagering transaction for purposes of withholding taxes is one in which all wagers are identical because bets are placed on the same animal (or team) to win the contest. If the wagers are not identical, there is more than one wagering transaction.

Further, according to the Service, each bet on a different possible winning combination is a separate wagering transaction for purposes of determining taxable income. It is apparent from this that, because each bet on a slot machine is a bet on a different set of contingencies programmed for the machine, each push of the button is a different gambling transaction. While it is clear that there may be a “definitional problem” in determining what constitutes one gambling transaction, it is not obvious that a practical distinction can be established between an individual bet on a horserace and an individual hand of poker, or between an individual lottery ticket purchase and a single push of the button on a slot machine. The key to resolving this issue may reside in application of the constructive-receipt doctrine.

Constructive Receipt

Because individuals usually report their income on a cash basis, the constructive-receipt doctrine applies to their gambling transactions, as well as to other accessions to wealth. Constructive receipt means that income occurs when the taxpayer has the opportunity, whether exercised or not, to draw on the cash freely.23 The crux of constructive receipt is essentially unfettered taxpayer control over the time funds are actually received; control is not subject to any substantial limit or restriction. In this respect, gambling is analogous to earning interest on a savings account, but not actually retrieving it.24 The interest (or the gambling transaction winning) is taxable when available for withdrawal; whether one chooses to remove the cash at that point or leave it on account (in the slot machine or on the blackjack table) is irrelevant to its taxability.

Based on this reasoning, each winning or losing wager should constitute a gambling transaction, because a gambler could stop betting after any given wager. Thus, winnings (and losses) should be tracked for each individual bet, not, as many (most) gamblers (anecdotally) assume, on the basis of the day’s (or year’s) final tally. Reporting the outcome of each wager results in reporting gambling winnings at gross—as the law requires—and in an objectively determinable manner (although cumbersome, because of the recordkeeping). Without this interpretation of a gambling transaction, reporting losses separately from winnings becomes subjective and places the taxation of gambling gains effectively at the taxpayer’s discretion.

Slot Machine (In-Out) Reports

Exhibit 2 is a sample report issued by casinos to slot machine players who register for the casino’s “Players’ Club” and use the card to record their slot machine play. The Players’ Club cards are magnetic-strip cards inserted by the gambler into the casino’s slot machines, which electronically track the player’s wins and losses.25 Taxpayer-gamblers who frequent casinos will often have this report available in their tax records.26

The win/loss amount is net; its accuracy hinges on several factors. The first is the consistency of the taxpayer’s use of the card when playing slot machines. (If he or she played at more than one casino, was a card used at each? Was the card employed at each machine? Did anyone else use the card?) The second is the taxpayer’s record of cash available before playing the slots, as well as after playing them; the “dollars in” figure includes amounts bet plus amounts placed in the machine’s currency accepter, but does not break them out. If the slot player cashes out the same amount he or she originally placed in the machine (i.e., breaks even), the amounts wagered and won are reliable indicators of gross winnings and wagers (given the above limits). If this is not the case, the win/loss amount must be adjusted by the change in cash position from the beginning of play to the end.27

The columns are calculated as described in Exhibit 3, which includes comparing amounts wagered to winnings and cash at the outset with cash at the end.

Taxpayer-gamblers are sometimes shocked by the numbers presented in the report in relation to their memories of actual amounts wagered. This results in part because “dollars in” represents not only the amount originally placed in the slot machine, but also the cumulative wagers—although the amounts wagered were likely never available to the gambler at any one time.28

Example 1: A gambler placed $2,000 of his own funds into slot machines over the course of a year. These wagers, together with credits from winning bets, generated cumulative wagers of $10,375.75, of which $8,729.50 was derived from winnings ($2,000 was cashed out). The result is a $1,646 net loss; see Exhibit 4.

The “dollars out” column includes winnings plus funds cashed out, if any (not including jackpots, which are paid by hand and reported separately). In this example, the amounts originally deposited in the slot machine plus the amounts wagered exceed the amounts won plus dollars cashed out. When the hand-paid jackpot of $1,200 is subtracted, the loss is reduced to $446.25, as indicated in the report in Exhibit 2.

Reporting Losses

The fact that a taxpayer incurred a net loss for a year does not relieve him or her of the obligation to report winnings. In Exhibit 2, the Form W-2G received for the $1,200 jackpot will likely encourage the taxpayer to report such winnings on his return. The Exhibit 2 report states that there was a net loss for the year; this may lead the taxpayer to conclude that a $1,200 deduction in offsetting losses is warranted on Form 1040, Schedule A. This is how the problem of demonstrating a basis for losses arises, because the losses on the report are linked to income that may be unreported.

It is up to the taxpayer to establish the out-of-pocket amount ($2,000 in Example 1). The process of establishing gross winnings requires the taxpayer to prove the amount originally wagered, as well as the funds remaining at the end of a gambling session. The IRS lists bank records as one means of corroborating amounts gambled; thus, taxpayers can accomplish this by making automated teller machine (ATM) withdrawals at the casino and retaining these records. After the amount of the taxpayer’s own funds provided and retained is determined, he or she can establish gross winnings and losses from the in-out report. While it may appear that basing gross winnings on the “dollars out” balance (less amounts cashed out) involves reporting “phantom winnings” (because the winnings are never available all at one time), it is also the starting point for establishing a basis for losses realized and is needed to segregate winnings from losses.

Erbs

In Erbs,29 the taxpayer, with an AGI of $27,865, had visited a casino on 88 days in 1996. The taxpayer reported as his gambling gross income jackpots listed on Forms W-2G totaling $10,538. He also indicated to the court that casino records recorded a “dollars in” total of $368,166.95 and a “dollars out” balance of $341,530.20; see Exhibit 5.

To determine winnings from the report, it is necessary, as was noted, to know how much of the taxpayer’s “dollars in” came from his own funds (pre-winnings). The taxpayer testified that he visited the Ho-Chunk Casino in Baraboo, WI on 88 days during the year. On each occasion, he withdrew from an ATM to finance the day’s gambling. The total supplied by the taxpayer is not indicated; however, assuming that his daily bank ATM limit was $300, this would amount to $26,400 (88 × $300) of his own money. If the taxpayer used no other funds for his slot machine play, his wagers would constitute the balance of the “dollars in” amount, $341,766.95 ($368,166.95 – $26,400). The taxpayer’s loss would then be the difference between the amounts wagered and the “dollars out” amount, which represents slot machine winnings (less amounts cashed out, if any). Reporting the grossed-up winnings in the Erbs example results in an increase to AGI of $315,130.20 (assuming funds cashed out equaled funds at the start of play).30

Establishing Basis for Losses

As was noted, a taxpayer who fails to report his or her gambling winnings in full, then loses some or all of these winnings, has no basis in the losses and, thus, nothing to deduct. According to Alsop,31 “[a] taxpayer may not take a loss in connection with an income item…unless the income item has been previously taken up as income in the appropriate tax return.” It is only by reporting all winnings (even if those winnings—in the form of “house money”—are re-bet and subsequently lost), that a taxpayer can establish a basis in all his or her losses.32 In Erbs, this would mean reporting $315,130.20 in winnings, plus $10,538 of jackpots, and deducting $341,766.95 in losses (limited to winnings)—adjusted for the difference between original funds available at the beginning and those available at the end33, see Exhibit 6.

In Mack, the taxpayer admitted he won other wagers during the tax year, but testified he sustained corresponding offsetting losses that were not included in the amount deducted as a loss. The court registered its skepticism, asking whether the taxpayer had not already included some of these “corresponding” losses in the claimed losses. The court noted that the taxpayer had the burden of showing that the funds used for making wagers were either on hand at the beginning of the year, or were acquired during the year from nonwagering sources. It concluded that he failed to make this showing. Failure to recognize winnings means that if those winnings are re-bet and lost, the taxpayer has no basis in those losses, and, thus, nothing to deduct.

Recordkeeping

Sec. 7491(a) places the burden of proof on the Service with respect to any factual issue relating to tax liability, as long as the taxpayer maintained adequate records, satisfied the substantiation requirements, cooperated with the IRS and introduced credible evidence as the factual issues. Sec. 6001 and its regulations prescribe the recordkeeping requirements applicable to all taxpayers, including gamblers. In Kikalos,34 the court stated that taxpayers must maintain accounting records of gambling activities that enable them to file accurate returns. When a taxpayer fails to maintain or produce adequate books and records, the Service is authorized to calculate the taxpayer’s taxable income by any method that, in its opinion, clearly reflects the taxpayer’s income. The IRS’s determination of taxable income in such cases is presumptively correct; its method need not be exact, but must be reasonable in the context of the available facts and circumstances.

In Rodriguez,35 the taxpayer argued that accurate records of gambling losses and winnings are difficult to maintain. He testified that the “very nature of the business makes this task daunting, if not impossible.” The Service countered that the taxpayer did not prove the amount of his gambling losses or that they exceeded his unreported gambling winnings. Implicitly, according to the court,

this requires the taxpayer to prove both the amount of his losses and the amount of his winnings. Otherwise there can be no way of knowing whether the sum of the losses claimed on the return is greater or less than the taxpayer’s winnings.…If the taxpayer, in addition to the winnings reported on his or her return, received other winnings that were not reported, then the taxpayer must prove that the losses claimed in his or her return exceeded the unreported winnings in order to be entitled to deduct any such losses. (Emphasis added.)

The court concluded that the taxpayer’s contention, that maintaining accurate records of gambling losses and winnings is difficult, is insufficient to counter the Service’s determination. All taxpayers, it held, are required to substantiate their deductions under Sec. 165(d), and the taxpayer is being held to the same standard imposed on all taxpayers.

Taxpayer Credibility

In another case,36 a recreational gambler had won at least 29 horserace wagers during 1996, totaling $32,050. He reported none of the winnings, asserting that they were nontaxable because his offsetting gambling losses during the year exceeded $70,000. However, the taxpayer failed to document his losing wagers, and relied “primarily on his [own] testimony to prove his allegation.” The court found his testimony not to be credible and declined to rely on it. Although the court acknowledged the taxpayer most likely had some gambling losses during the year, it was unable to determine (either with specificity or by estimation) those losses on the evidence presented.

In Mack, the court accepted as evidence of gambling losses 15 checks payable to the Detroit Race Course. In his testimony, the taxpayer admitted that it was unusual for bettors to cash checks at racetracks, but explained that they had been accepted by a course official who was a long-time friend. While accepting the checks as evidence of some gambling losses, the court did not find the taxpayer’s evidence adequate to substantiate the full amount of his claim.

Less-Credible Taxpayers

In Stein,37 the court ruled on the adequacy of a professional gambler’s books and records. It stated that a summary record of income and expenses prepared at the end of the year (rather than during the normal course of the taxpayer’s business) is inadequate substantiation. Likewise, a condensed record made contemporaneously during the year, but unsupported by records of original entry, is also insufficient. The taxpayer claimed that his records of original entry, recording his gambling activities, were scratch paper notations prepared daily, based on increases and decreases in his bankroll, and a notebook prepared at the end of the year from these notations. The notebooks did not contain original entries, but “disclosed a running balance interspersed with dated entries which purport to show winnings (listed as ‘in’) and losses (recorded as ‘out’).”

Stein followed the practice of recording at the end of each day an amount purported to represent his net gain or loss for the day from gambling transactions. He recorded these amounts (preceded by a “W” or “L”) on any scrap of paper he could find handy such as a match folder, scrap of note paper, cocktail napkin, scratch pad, soap wrapper, postcard, score card, gin rummy slip, etc. He kept these various slips of paper in his pocket until he returned home where he placed them in a drawer and retained them until the end of the year. After the close of each of the years in issue he collected all these scraps of paper containing dated entries preceded by a “W” or “L” and copied the entries in a small notebook. He afterwards destroyed the various pieces of paper.

The court found this method of recordkeeping inadequate to establish gambling losses and their basis. The taxpayer’s notebooks did not contain details of any of his gambling transactions, nor disclose the identity of any of his bettors. Because the original records had been destroyed, the veracity of the notebooks could not be verified. Had he retained the records of original entry, each dated and including pertinent identifying detail (e.g., numbers of bets, amounts bet, source of funds, kinds of wagers, individuals involved and payments received), the court might have been less reluctant to accept his notebooks as adequate.

Report Money Lost At The Casino For Tax Purposes Per

Credibility of the Records

In Green,38 a pro-taxpayer case, the court characterized the IRS’s position as follows: “The total amount of wins can be accepted as an admission against interest while the amount of total losses is merely a self-serving declaration which must be proven by verifiable data.” According to the court, the taxpayer supplied original records of a gambling partnership that reported wins, losses, expenses, payroll disbursements, distributions to partners and a running balance of the partnership bankroll. Contrary to the Service’s position, the court found that the failure to account for gross receipts and gambling disbursements did not justify totally disregarding daily net-loss figures when it was shown that those amounts were obtained from “orderly records and, when subtracted from the amounts reported as net wins, are sufficient to calculate gross income and net income.”39 Thus, in Green, a journal reflecting daily gambling activity, but failing to show total wins and losses, was superior to a year-end record, as in Stein, showing totals but lacking detail sufficient to generate them.

The Cohan Doctrine

Cohan40 is often cited by the courts in the context of gambling losses. In Zielonka,41 in which a court disallowed the deduction of gambling losses, it stated that, if the trial record provides evidence that a taxpayer actually incurred a deductible expense, but the evidence is inadequate to substantiate the amount of the deduction to which the taxpayer is entitled, the court may estimate the expense and allow that amount as deductible (the allowance of an estimate is known as the Cohan doctrine). In such cases, the court can only estimate the deduction if provided with some basis to make the estimate. In Zielonka, the taxpayer was not allowed to deduct $140,830 of gambling losses to offset gambling winnings of a like amount. The court noted that a taxpayer’s gambling losses are based on the facts and circumstances and must be decided on the evidence presented.

In Drews,42 the court applied the Cohan doctrine and found the taxpayer sustained net gambling losses. The taxpayer had failed to keep records of gains or losses from his gambling transactions, but claimed a deduction for gambling losses to partially offset his $9,000 gambling winnings from a single horserace. Gambling losses were allowed, but in an amount less than claimed by the taxpayer. In justifying its findings, the court stated, “We are convinced, on the whole, that petitioner…was a truthful and candid witness.”

In Doffin,43 the court estimated and allowed IRS-rejected gambling losses. The court looked at the taxpayer’s lifestyle and history, which included the sale of personal assets (rather than their purchase) and debt acquisition to finance gambling activities. According to the court, the taxpayer had few other assets that would “indicate any significant accessions to wealth.” In the years in question, 1986 and 1987, the taxpayer reported Form W-2 wages of $14,717 and $12,540, respectively. Ignoring the economic realities, the Service attributed gambling winnings of $46,240 and $32,771 to the taxpayer, with no offsetting deductions for losses. The court reasoned that if the taxpayer had winnings in those amounts, most of them must have been used to finance additional gambling, most of which resulted in losses. The losses were estimated by the court at $39,000 and $26,000, respectively, for the years at issue. Aiding the court in applying the Cohan doctrine was the taxpayer’s testimony, which it found “honest and credible.”44

Report Money Lost At The Casino For Tax Purposes Will

Strategy

So many courts have refused to apply the Cohan doctrine to gambling losses that taxpayers and their advisers should not feel comfortable relying on a court to make such estimates.45 A better strategy is to maintain adequate, detailed, contemporaneous records of winnings and losses. Corroborating evidence is essential in establishing basis for gambling losses. The Service and the courts look at lifestyle, large cash purchases, levels and use of debt, credibility of testimony and bank and credit card records. For slot machine players, the conscientious use of a Players’ Club card may be a first line of defense in dealing with the IRS, not merely a means for obtaining comps and discounts from the casinos. In using this documentation, the taxpayer must also track the amount used for gambling (original cash supplied, not current winnings) and the amount cashed out of slot machines and retained.

Many recreational gamblers establish a loss limit before an excursion to the casino; when that money is gone, they stop gambling. If this is the case, the use of in-out reports to establish the basis of losses and gross winnings is made easier. Because these gamblers keep wagering until their pre-established loss limit is met, only the beginning cash balance for each casino visit must be demonstrated. If this amount is subtracted from the “dollars in” total, the balance is the amount wagered. The “dollars out” total, if there are no amounts cashed out (i.e., the cash loss limit was met), is the taxpayer’s gross winnings. The result is a credible third-party record of gross winnings or losses.

Conclusion

Advising and preparing returns for the growing number of individuals engaged in recreational gambling is a difficult proposition, partly due to the gap between the IRS’s expectations as to recordkeeping and taxpayer-gamblers’ beliefs and attitudes. A tax adviser is faced with educating clients as to the requirement to report winnings separately from losses and to report gross winnings (which include house money won and subsequently lost). Clients must also be informed that they have the burden of proving that the funds used for making wagers were either on hand at the start of the year or their acquisition during the year was from nonwagering sources.46 This burden is a difficult hurdle, especially in the context of an activity generally engaged in for pleasure and diversion. Maintaining clear, contemporaneous records of both winnings and losses is the only trustworthy defense a taxpayer (even a recreational gambler) can produce that will prove effective against a Service challenge to gambling loss deductions.

For more information, contact Dr. Morris at Dmorr2@uis.edu.

Notes

1Preben Norgaard, TC Memo 1989-390, aff’d on one issue and rev’d on another, 939 F2d 874 (9th Cir. 1991).

2 See, e.g., Robert M. Kalisch, TC Memo 1986-541, aff’d in unpub. op., 838 F2d 461 (3d Cir. 1987); Carolyn J. Schooler, 68 TC 867 (1977); and Clifford F. Mack, TC Memo 1969-26, aff’d, 429 F2d 182 (6th Cir. 1970).

3 U.S. Tax Court Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 US 111 (1933).

4 Mack, note 2 supra.

5 Ronald J. Lutz Jr., TC Memo 2002-89.

6 In Lutz, id., the court pointed out that had the IRS wanted to introduce at trial the amount of unreported gambling winnings (which were not listed in the notice of deficiency), it had the burden of proving this amount. The Service may have been able to reconstruct the amount based on large asset purchases mentioned in the case.

7 Rev. Proc. 77-29, 1977-2 CB 538.

8 Robert M. Kalisch, note 2 supra.

9 U.S. General Accounting Office, Impact of Gambling: Economic Effects More Measurable Than Social Effects (Washington, DC, 2000), available at www.gao.gov/new.items/gg00078.pdf.

10 The $73 billion is composed of $28.7 billion (39.4%) from commercial casinos, $16.7 billion (23%) from Indian Tribal Government casinos, $19.9 billion (27.4%) from state lotteries and $7.4 billion (10.2%) from horserace wagering and charity events; see National Indian Gaming Association, An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Indian Gaming in 2004 (hereafter cited as “Indian Gaming”), available at www.indiangaming.org/NIGA_econ_impact_2004.pdf.

11 Garrett, Casino Gambling in America and Its Economic Impacts (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 2003).

12 IRS Pub. 1304, SOI Tax Stats—Individual Income Tax Returns, Tables 1.4 and 2.1.

13 See Indian Gaming, note 10 supra.

14 Total national casino visits of 310 million (see Harrah’s Survey 2004, “Profile of the American Casino Gambler”), divided by the national average of 5.8 times per visitor, equals 53 million individuals.

15 Foltin, “Gaming on the Rise Across America: Smart Money Says CPAs Should Take Notice,” CPA Journal (October 2005), available at www.nysscapa.org/cpajournal/2005/1005/essentials/p56.htm.

16 Edward D. Hamilton, TC Memo 2004-161.

17 Jimmie L. Clemons, TC Summ. Op. 2005-109.

18 Taxpayers may assume that if the net result of a casino session is a loss, no winnings need to be reported. However, in the process of losing, it is unlikely that there were no winning transactions. Winnings are “realized accessions to wealth” over which a taxpayer has dominion and control and, thus, are presumed to be income; see Paul F. Roemer Jr., 716 F2d 693 (9th Cir. 1983) and Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 US 426 (1955). That a taxpayer chooses to bet the winnings rather than cash them out is not determinative of their taxability.

19 Schooler, note 2 supra.

20 Regs. Sec. 1.165-10 states, “Losses sustained during the taxable year on wagering transactions shall be allowed as a deduction but only to the extent of the gains during the taxable year from such transactions. In the case of a husband and wife making a joint return for the taxable year, the combined losses of the spouses from wagering transactions shall be allowed to the extent of the combined gains of the spouses from wagering transactions.”

21 IRS General Counsel Memorandum 37312 (11/7/77).

22 IRS Letter Ruling 8123015 (2/27/81).

Report Money Lost At The Casino For Tax Purposes 2019

23 See Sec. 451(a). Regs. Sec. 1.451-2(a) states, “Income although not actually reduced to the taxpayer’s possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time.” Winnings from a slot machine, for example, are “set aside” for the taxpayer, requiring only a push of the button labeled “cash out.” The regulation further states that “income is not constructively received if the taxpayer’s control of its receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions.” In the case of a slot machine, there is no limit or restriction on pressing the “cash out” button (except, perhaps, the gambler’s desire for greater winnings).

Report Money Lost At The Casino For Tax Purposes Due

24 See Regs. Sec. 1.451-2.

25 See Lutz, note 5 supra.

26 However, gamblers must request this document from a casino; it will not be sent automatically.

27 If the taxpayer-gambler is a frequent casino player and the separately paid jackpots are added back to amounts cashed out, it may be possible to use the average slot machine payout rate (e.g., 95%) to argue that the cash removed from the machine was the same percentage of the amount inserted into the machine. To date, however, there is no authority for this position in court cases or IRS rulings.

28 This issue can be confusing to the courts as well. In Est. of Graciano Espinoza, TC Memo 2005-239, the Tax Court grappled with the issue of the relative wealth of an individual who admittedly won $2.6 million playing slot machines (receiving 526 Forms W-2Gs averaging $5,000 each) and claimed to have lost a like amount. The court seemed to believe that if the taxpayer had wagered $7 million during the year, as claimed, he must have had been very wealthy. The court asked, “where did decedent [Espinoza] in 2000 obtain $7 million to play the slot machines?...Decedent apparently owed the Nevada casinos only $70,000, suggesting that decedent had access to millions of dollars.” But this confuses gross revenue with net income. If a gambler constantly plows winnings back into gambling, producing losses and more winnings, the cumulative winnings cannot be used as a measure of wealth. The winnings may be great, but the losses may be (and often are) equal in proportion. This is why it is important to look at issues of lifestyle and asset acquisition (which the court did). The assets acquired in the case included an automobile purchased “with $10,000 in cash.” For someone claiming he or she did not win $10,000, this might be a sticky point. But when the court is asking how the taxpayer acquired $7 million, a $10,000 expenditure appears immaterial.

29 Eldron Erbs, TC Summ. Op. 2001-85.

30 Erbs reported his gambling income and losses on Schedule C, claiming he was a professional gambler (which the court denied). Moving the gambling income to page one of Form 1040 and the gambling losses to miscellaneous itemized deductions (not subject to the 2% limit), and using the figures in the case, but calculating the changes using 2005 rates, he would have lost slightly over $1,200 of itemized deductions had he claimed gambling income of $325,668 ($10,538 jackpots + $315,130 from other winnings) and gambling losses of a like amount. Items based on AGI, such as the taxability of Social Security (which was otherwise nontaxable to Erbs), the medical expense deduction, IRA deductions, itemized deductions, personal exemptions and various credits, would all be correspondingly affected. In addition, the statute of limitations increases from three to six years if unreported grossed-up gambling winnings constitute 25% of the gross income originally reported on the return; see Sec. 6501(e)(1)(A). Finally, 11 of the states that impose an individual income tax do not allow a deduction for gambling losses.

31 Mary O’Hara Alsop, 290 F2d 726 (2d Cir. 1961).

32 To date, there is little evidence that taxpayers make extensive use of these year-end reports in filing returns. In Remos, TC Summ. Op. 2005-98, the taxpayer attempted to convince the court of gambling losses he needed to offset unreported gambling winnings using a Players’ Club report, but could not explain the significance of the numbers appearing on the report, or even prove that the report was issued to him.

33 More precisely, if records are available, amounts wagered on winning bets should be removed from the $341,766.95 total wagers and subtracted from total winnings to arrive at gross winnings. The net would be the same, but AGI would decrease.

34 Nick Kikalos, TC Memo 1998-92, rev’d on another issue, 190 F3d 791 (7th Cir. 1999).

35 Juan Rodriguez, TC Memo 2001-36.

36 Leroy V. Satran, TC Summ. Op. 2001-140.

37 Philip Stein, TC Memo 1962-19, aff’d, 322 F2d 78 (5th Cir. 1963); Plisco, 306 F2d 784 (CA DC 1962), aff’g 192 FSupp 337 (DC DC 1961).

38 Gene P. Green, 66 TC 538 (1976).

39 See also James P. McKenna, 1 BTA 326 (1925); George Winkler, 230 F2d 766 (1st Cir. 1956).

40 George M. Cohan, 39 F2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930).

41 John David Zielonka, TC Memo 1997-81.

42 Herman Drews, 25 TC 1354 (1956).

43 Randy G. Doffin, TC Memo 1991-114.

44 Other cases in which the court applied the Cohan doctrine to estimate gambling losses include Green, note 38 supra (gambling partnership); and Kalisch, note 2 supra (horserace wagering).

45 See, e.g., Odysseus Metas, TC Memo 1982-36; Gregory Alberico, TC Memo 1995-542; Walter E. Parschutz, Sr., TC Memo 1988-327; Tiobor I. Skirscak, TC Memo 1980-129.

46 See Mack, note 2 supra.