Gambler Vows to Appeal Gambling Tax Decision
A man described by a Canadian judge as "a lifelong gambler" has vowed to keep fighting for the right to claim his gambling expenses as tax deductible, even after losing his court case.
Guiseppe Tarascio, who works for Bell as a technician by day and is a well known high roller at several Canadian casinos by night, was told by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto that he would not be able to write off tens of thousands of dollars in casino and horse betting losses as a business expense.
Tarascio, who gambles on horses, slots, casino games and the lottery, heard the court say that "after work and on the weekend he spends most of his time gambling. He says that gambling is his calling."
According to court records, Tarascio tried to deduct $40,933 and $56,000 in 2002 and 2003 respectively as business expenses; however, on both occasions his requests were denied.
Judge John M. Evans, on hearing Tarascio's appeal of the decision ruled: "The Minister of National Revenue disallowed these deductions on the ground that Tarascio's gambling activities did not constitute a business."
His case was dismissed and Tarascio was ordered to pay $1 in court fees.
Canadian Gambler Vows to Fight On
But despite Judge Evans' ruling, Tarascio is not giving up just yet. The high roller said that he has been trying for many years to get his wagering expenses deducted from Revenue Canada and he vowed to keep fighting.
"I could have won this case if I had a lawyer," he noted. "If the casinos make money from me, then I should be able to claim the amount."
Tarascio said he would continue searching for a lawyer and that he would strive to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. "I am very serious about this," he warned.
Asked how he justified claiming deductions for expenses that weren't related to a business, Tarascio said that his gambling had "elements of a hobby or personal venture and a business."
He said that since he had a "degree in mathematics, including probability theory," his gambling constituted his "special knowledge and skill as a gambler."
The court's gambling tax decision read: "Tarascio testified that he gambled, win or lose, because he loved the thrill of gambling. He had little by way of a systematic method for gambling and spent no time practicing his skills."
