Bevers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 55695.
| Decision Date | 28 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 55695. |
| Citation | 26 T.C. 1218 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE E. BEVERS AND MADELINE V. BEVERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William G. Ruymann, Esq., for the petitioners.
Mark Townsend, Esq., for the respondent.
Lawrence E. Bevers, a dealer in a gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, received certain sums throughout 1953 which represented his share of the proceeds of winning wagers which had been made on behalf of all the dealers in the casino by the patrons. Held, these sums represent taxable income in the form of compensation for personal services.
This proceeding involves a deficiency in income tax for the year 1953 in the amount of $143.
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether amounts received by a dealer in a gambling casino as his share of the proceeds of wagers made by the patrons for him, and other dealers employed therein, represented taxable income or a gift; and (2) if such amounts are taxable, whether they represented ordinary income, or gambling income from which gambling losses sustained during the taxable year may be offset.
Lawrence E. Bevers (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and his wife, Madeline V. Bevers, resided in Las Vegas, Nevada, during the year 1953. Their joint Federal income tax return for the year was filed with the director of internal revenue for the district of Nevada.
Throughout the year in issue, petitioner was employed by several gambling casinos located in Las Vegas, Nevada. He performed his duties in the capacity of a dealer, or croupier, dealing a card game known as twenty-one or blackjack, and serving as a member of a crew which operated games of roulette and dice.
Petitioner's duties in these various games were as follows: In the game of twenty-one he dealt the cards, supervised the betting, paid the winning patrons, and collected from the losing patrons for the management. In the game of roulette he supervised the betting, spun the wheel, paid the winning patrons, and collected from the losing patrons for the management. In the game of dice he supervised the bets as made and paid them in accordance with the roll of the dice.
In each of these games petitioner's actions were closely supervised by other employees to insure that no special favors, services, or attentions were given the patrons by the dealers. Fraternization and unnecessary conversation between the dealers and the patrons were forbidden by the management. The dealers were not permitted to advise the patrons of advantageous bets, all contact between them being reduced to an absolute minimum.
During the course of each of the aforementioned games, it was a common practice for the patrons to make, in addition to their own bets, a bet for the dealer operating the game being played. As the bet was made for him, the dealer's attention was called to it by the individual making it. In the event the bet was a winning one, its proceeds went to the dealer for whom made. Before putting the proceeds into his pocket, the dealer would notify his immediate superior that the money was the result of a bet made for him by one of the patrons. The money comprising the original bet for the dealer remained the property of the player who made it, and it was customary for him to leave it on the table as a wager for the dealer until it was lost to the management. The proceeds of the winning wagers were accumulated in a common fund for the shift wherein received, and then divided equally between all the dealers on that particular shift. The money so received by the dealers was known as ‘side money.’
The management of the casinos, wherein petitioner was employed, recognized that the dealers were receiving side money in the manner indicated, and acquiesced in the practice.
During 1953, petitioner received as side money the sum of $623. No portion of this sum was returned by petitioners in their joint return for the year.
Petitioner sustained a net gambling loss of $1,800 during the year in issue.
Respondent determined that the sum received by petitioner as side money represented taxable income in the nature of tips.
Respondent contends that the proceeds of the wagers made in petitioner's behalf were tips given him by the patrons of the casinos, and therefore taxable income under the authority of Harry A. Roberts, 10 T.C. 581 (1948), affd. 186 F.2d 221 (C.A. 9, 1949). In attacking this contention, petitioners argue that such amounts were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davies v. Commissioner
...in gross income under section 61(a)(1)11Olk v. United States 76-2 USTC ¶ 9484, 536 F. 2d 876, 879 (CA9 1976); Bevers v. Commissioner Dec. 21,956, 26 T.C. 1218 (1956). Petitioners maintain that the Court of Appeals erred in Olk (and, presumably, that we erred in Bevers). However, we are give......
-
Mayo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...United States, 762 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir.1985); Allen v. U.S. Govt. Dept. of Treasury, 976 F.2d 975 (5th Cir.1992); Bevers v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 1218, 1956 WL 763 (1956); see also Williams v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1980–494. But see Libutti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1996–108. In Boyd v. U......
-
Executive Network Club, Inc. v. Commissioner
...USTC ¶ 9484], 536 F.2d 876, 877 (9th Cir. 1976); Schroeder v. Commissioner [Dec. 26,063], 40 T.C. 30, 33 (1963); Bevers v. Commissioner [Dec. 21,956], 26 T.C. 1218, 1220 (1956); Roberts v. Commissioner [Dec. 16,324], 10 T.C. 581, 583-584 (1948), affd. [49-2 USTC ¶ 9330] 176 F.2d 221 (9th Ci......
-
Olk v. U.S.
...with the trend of authorities in the area of commercial gratuities as well as with the only decision squarely in point, Lawrence E. Bevers, 26 T.C. 1218 (1956), and this Circuit's view of tips as revealed in Roberts v. Commissioner, 176 F.2d 221 (9th Cir. 1949). Generalizations are treacher......