Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States

Last updated
Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States of America
ArguedOctober 5, 1981
DecidedJanuary 7, 1982
Citation(s)664 F.2d 1387; 82-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9136
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Joseph Tyree Sneed III, Thomas Tang, Harry Pregerson
Case opinions
MajoritySneed, joined by Tang, Pregerson
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code

Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States, 664 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1982), [1] was a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that decided the question of when the right to receive income represented by "markers", or gambling credit lines, become "fixed" for tax purposes based on the "all events" test.

Contents

Facts

The Flamingo Resort, a Las Vegas casino, routinely extended lines of credit to some of its customers in order to help facilitate gambling in the casino. Customers would sign "markers" which represented their liability for the amount loaned. The Flamingo Resort successfully collected on those receivables at rates as high as 96%. On its 1967 tax return, the casino, an accrual basis taxpayer, excluded $676,432.00 of receivables attributable to uncollected loans from "markers" issued. The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service required the accrual of this income.

Issue

The issue in this case was whether the right to receive income from the "markers" was "fixed" for accrual purposes when the "markers" were first extended or if the right was not "fixed" until the casino collected on the loans.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the lower court, holding that the right to receive income was sufficiently "fixed" when the credit was extended and therefore required the casino to include the $676,432.00 in dispute on their 1967 tax return.

Reasoning

The Court began by defining the test which governs the timing for reporting income of accrual basis taxpayers, which is the "all events" test. The "all events" test requires, in relevant part, that income be included in gross income "when all the events have occurred which fix the right to receive such income." [2] The casino argued that the right to receive income from the "markers" was not "fixed" because Nevada does not recognize a legal obligation for customers to pay gambling debts of this sort. The Court explicitly rejected the casino's reliance on H. Liebes & Co. v. Commissioner, [3] holding that this case did not require that there must be a legal liability to pay the debt, only that the obligation be "fixed" and there be a "reasonable expectancy" that the obligation would be collected.

The Court found that the casino had a "reasonable expectancy" that the "marker" obligations would be converted into cash since the casino itself estimated it collected at a rate as high as 96% on the "markers" issued. The lack of a legally enforceable right against the customers was not controlling and such a right is not necessary in order for the right to the income to be fixed. Therefore, the court held that the casino's right to the income was "fixed" for accrual purposes and that the "markers" must be accrued when issued.

Importance

The Internal Revenue Service followed the holding of this case with Revenue Ruling 83-106 which held that an accrual method casino is required to include in income all gambling revenue originating from extensions of credit in the year in which the gambling obligations arise. This is important because it makes clear that a right to income can be fixed for purposes of the "all events" test of accrual method taxpayers without there being a legally enforceable right to the income. It is sufficient for there to be a reasonable expectation of collecting on the obligation. This prevents casinos from being able to defer income into later taxable years simply by running much of their play on credit lines.

Notes

  1. Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States, 664F.2d1387 ( 9th Cir. 1982).PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. Treas. Reg. Section 1.451-1(a).
  3. H. Liebes & Co. v. Commissioner, 90F.2d932 ( 9th Cir. 1937).

Related Research Articles

The Canada Revenue Agency is the revenue service of the federal government, and most provincial and territorial governments. The CRA collects taxes, administers tax law and policy, and delivers benefit programs and tax credits. Legislation administered by the CRA includes the Income Tax Act, parts of the Excise Tax Act, and parts of laws relating to the Canada Pension Plan, employment insurance (EI), tariffs and duties. The agency also oversees the registration of charities in Canada, and enforces much of the country's tax laws.

Revenue recognition

The revenue recognition principle is a cornerstone of accrual accounting together with the matching principle. They both determine the accounting period in which revenues and expenses are recognized. According to the principle, revenues are recognized when they are realized or realizable, and are earned, no matter when cash is received. In cash accounting – in contrast – revenues are recognized when cash is received no matter when goods or services are sold.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal government, and most states. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

IRS penalties

Taxpayers in the United States may face various penalties for failures related to Federal, state, and local tax matters. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is primarily responsible for charging these penalties at the Federal level. The IRS can assert only those penalties specified imposed under Federal tax law. State and local rules vary widely, are administered by state and local authorities, and are not discussed herein.

Rules concerning income tax and gambling vary internationally.

<i>Olk v. United States</i>

Olk v. United States, 536 F.2d 876, 76-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9484, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920, 97 S. Ct. 317 (1976), was a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which dealt with the question of whether tips to casino dealers were taxable as income to the dealers under Internal Revenue Code section 61 or, alternatively, nontaxable gifts under Internal Revenue Code section 102(a).

The Doctrine of Cash Equivalence states that the U.S. Federal income tax law treats certain non-cash payment transactions like cash payment transactions for federal income tax purposes. The doctrine is used most often for deciding when cash method taxpayers are to include certain non-cash income items. Another doctrine often used when trying to determine the timing of the inclusion of income is the constructive receipt doctrine.

Basis of accounting The time when financial transactions are reported

A basis of accounting is the time various financial transactions are recorded. The cash basis and the accrual basis are the two primary methods of tracking income and expenses in accounting.

<i>Zarin v. Commissioner</i>

Zarin v. Commissioner, 916 F.2d 110 is a United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision concerning the cancellation of debt and the tax consequences for the borrower for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The all-events test, under U.S. federal income tax law, is the requirement that all the events fixing an accrual-method taxpayer's right to receive income or incur expense must occur before the taxpayer can report an item of income or expense.

Installment sales method

The installment sales method is one of several approaches used to recognize revenue under the US GAAP, specifically when revenue and expense are recognized at the time of cash collection rather than at the time of sale. Under the US GAAP, it is the principal method of revenue recognition when the recognition occurs subsequently to the sale.

In the tax law of the United States the claim of right doctrine causes a taxpayer to recognize income if they receive the income even though they do not have a fixed right to the income. For the income to qualify as being received there must be a receipt of cash or property that ordinarily constitutes income rather than loans or gifts or deposits that are returnable, the taxpayer needs unlimited control on the use or disposition of the funds, and the taxpayer must hold and treat the income as its own. This law is largely created by the courts, but some aspects have been codified into the Internal Revenue Code.

<i>Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States</i>

Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States, 158 F.3d 484, was a court case that addressed whether a casino, using the accrual method of accounting, could deduct the value of slot club points earned by slot club members in the tax year in which the members accumulated the minimum points required to redeem a prize, or whether the casino had to wait to deduct the value of the slot club points until the members actually redeemed them.

Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1963), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the accrual method, taxpayers must include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes, and contract installments falling due but remaining unpaid during that year. In doing so, the Court tossed aside the matching principle in favor of the earlier-of test.

<i>Artnell Company v. Commissioner</i>

Artnell Company v. Commissioner, 400 F.2d 981 is a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the court, distinguishing from the holding in Schlude v. Commissioner, held that accrual method taxpayers are not required to include prepayments in gross income when there is certainty as to when performance would occur.

Surrogatum is a thing put in the place of another or a substitute. The Surrogatum Principle pertains to a Canadian income tax principle involving a person who suffers harm caused by another and may seek compensation for (a) loss of income, (b) expenses incurred, (c) property destroyed, or (d) personal injury, as well as punitive damages, under the surrogatum principle, the tax consequences of a damage or settlement payment depend on the tax treatment of the item for which the payment is intended to substitute.

Tax compliance software is software that assists tax compliance, and may cover income tax, corporate tax, VAT, service tax, customs, sales tax, use tax, or other taxes its users may be required to pay. The software automatically calculates a user's tax liabilities to the government, keeps track of all transactions, keeps track of eligible tax credits, etc. The software can also generate forms or filings needed for tax compliance. The software will have pre-defined tax rates and slabs and can allocate income or revenue in the right slab itself. The aim of the software is to provide the user with easy way to calculate tax payment and minimize any human error. Tax compliance software has been present in developed countries for long in the form of tax calculators mainly for direct taxes, such as income tax and corporate tax. Gradually some more complex and customized tax compliance software has been designed and developed by organizations around the globe.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 239 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case, which hold that under 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation 1.461-1(a)(2), the "all events" test entitled an accrual-basis taxpayer to a federal income tax business-expense deduction, for the taxable year in which (1) all events had occurred which determined the fact of the taxpayer's liability, and (2) the amount of that liability could be determined with reasonable accuracy.

Taxation has an important part in the Turkish economy. Turkey has 25.5% tax-GDP ration. Most of the taxes are levied by central government. However some specific taxes are levied by municipalities.