Temporary wagering-loss rule does not cover gambling businesses' ordinary expenses

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel considered whether the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's temporary amendment to Section 165(d) treated a gambling business's ordinary and necessary expenses as wagering losses. The advice concludes that it did not. Based on the amendment's legislative history and its reversal of the Mayo decision, Chief Counsel read the change as applying to individual professional gamblers, whose wagering-related business expenses were limited to wagering gains for tax years 2018 through 2025. It did not extend that limitation to ordinary and necessary expenses incurred by businesses in the trade or business of gambling.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: Did the TCJA amendment to Section 165(d) treat a gambling business's ordinary expenses as losses from wagering transactions?
• Outcome: Advice given. The amendment applied to individuals, not to the ordinary and necessary expenses of gambling businesses.
• Key authorities: IRC §§ 162 and 165(d); Tax Cuts and Jobs Act § 1305; Mayo v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 81 (2011)

Full text (IRS public release)

       Office of Chief Counsel
       Internal Revenue Service
       Memorandum
       Number: 202111012
       Release Date: 3/19/2021
       CC:ITA:B03:Boone
       POSTU-104261-20

UILC: 165.08-00

date: February 16, 2021

 to:   Alan Cooper
       Senior Attorney, CC:LB:5:LA:1
       (Large Business & International)

from: Amy Wei
Senior Counsel, CC:ITA:B02
(Income Tax & Accounting)

subject: Application of the § 165(d) TCJA amendment to businesses in the trade or business
of gambling

       This Chief Counsel Advice responds to your request for assistance. This advice may
       not be used or cited as precedent.

       ISSUE

              Does the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) amendment to § 165(d) of the
       Internal Revenue Code apply to a business in the trade or business of gambling,
       thereby treating its ordinary and necessary business expenses as losses from wagering
       transactions?

       CONCLUSION

             The TCJA amendment to section 165(d) does not apply to the ordinary and
       necessary expenses of a business in the trade or business of gambling.

       STATEMENT OF FACTS

              You requested advice on whether the TCJA amendment to the deduction for
       wagering losses under §165(d) applies only to individuals or to any taxpayer involved in
       the trade or business of gambling, including casinos, as the plain language of the
       statute does not clearly distinguish between individual gamblers who are in the trade or

POSTU-104261-20 2

business of gambling (professional gamblers) and businesses in the trade or business
of gambling.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

   Section 165(a) allows a deduction for any loss sustained during the taxable year

and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. Section 165(c) limits the deduction
under § 165(a) to: (1) losses incurred in a trade or business; (2) losses incurred in any
transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with a trade or business; and
(3) losses arising from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or theft. Section
165(h)(5) limits a personal casualty loss to the extent it is attributable to a federally
declared disaster for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before
January 1, 2026.

  Section 165(d) provides that losses from wagering transactions are allowed as

deductions only to the extent of the gains from such transactions. See also section
1.165-10 of the Income Tax Regulations.

   As amended by section 1305 the TCJA, §165(d) also provides that, for purposes

of the preceding sentence, in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31,
2017, and before January 1, 2026, the term “losses from wagering transactions”
includes any deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter incurred in carrying on
any wagering transaction. The statutory language does not indicate if the amendment
applies to all taxpayers or only to individuals.

   Prior to the TCJA amendment, case law inconsistently applied the loss limitation

of § 165(d) to the expenses incurred by a professional gambler, such as traveling
expenses to and from the casino. These cases differed in the treatment of expenses
incurred with individual gambling and with operating a business with gaming activities.
See, e.g., Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987); Commissioner v. Sullivan,
356 U.S. 27 (1958); Estate of Todisco v. Commissioner, 757 F. 2d 1 (1st Cir. 1985), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1983-247; Offutt v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 1214 (1951); see also Kozma v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1986-177; Valenti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-483;
Kochevar v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-607.

   The Tax Court in Mayo v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 81 (2011), dealt with

individual taxpayers who were professional gamblers. The court acknowledged that the
treatment of business expenses as wagering losses was overbroad and did not reflect
the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. While the phrase “losses from
wagering transactions” had not been extensively considered under the case law, the
court construed the phrase “gains from such transactions” narrowly to mean proceeds
from a wager by the taxpayer where the taxpayer stands to gain or lose on the base of
chance. Mayo at 90. The court concluded that the gains and losses from wagering
transactions must be the actual product of wagers entered into by the taxpayer, not
merely arising in connection with conduct of wagering activities. Mayo at 93. The court
concluded that the prior case law interpretation of the phrase including expenses that
POSTU-104261-20 3

were not the result of a wager went beyond the ordinary meaning of the statute. Mayo
at 94. The court in Mayo followed this reasoning in holding that losses from wagering
transactions do not include trade or business expenses of a professional individual
gambler other than the costs of the wager. Id. at 97.

   In the TCJA, Congress amended the language of § 165(d), effectively negating

the Mayo decision. Under the amendment, for taxable years 2018 through 2025,
individual professional gamblers are prohibited from claiming business expenses arising
from wagering transactions in excess of gambling gains. In explaining the reason for
the change, the Committee Report on TCJA (Report 115-409) by the House Ways and
Means Committee states that “[t]he Committee believes that the scope of the limitation
on wagering losses should be broadened to cover expenses incurred in the conduct of
the individual’s gambling activity.” [emp added]. A footnote to the report states, “[t]he
provision thus reverses the result reached by the Tax Court in Ronald A. Mayo v.
Commissioner, 136 T.C. 81 (2011). In that case, the Court held that a taxpayer’s
expenses incurred in the conduct of the trade or business of gambling, other than the
cost of wagers, were not limited by sec. 165(d), and were thus deductible under sec.
162(a).”

   Nothing in the committee report states an intention to apply the amendment to

losses incurred by businesses in the trade or business of gambling. This intent is
repeated in the Reconciliation Recommendations (S. PRT. 115-20) by the Senate’s
Committee on the Budget, the House Conference Report on TCJA (Report 115-466),
and Joint Committee on Taxation’s General Explanation of TCJA (JCS-1-18).

    The TCJA amendment to § 165(d) applies only to individuals, as detailed in the

legislative history of the amendment and the Mayo case. As a result, individuals are
limited in the amount of a deduction for wagering losses, including those expenses
incurred in carrying on a wagering activity, to the amount of gains from wagering
transactions.

CASE DEVELOPMENT, HAZARDS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTU-104261-20 4

This writing may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure of this
writing may undermine our ability to protect the privileged information. If disclosure is
determined to be necessary, please contact this office for our views.

  Please call Elizabeth Boone at (202) 317-5100 if you have any further questions.