[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court (6-3) held that "(I)f one's gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business within the meaning of the statutes with which we here are concerned."

[/ QUOTE ] (emphasis added)

[censored]. How legally important is that reference to full time? Does this imply that the activity must provide a majority of the individual's income? Does it also imply that the activity must be pursued an average of 40 hours a week (or is there some other definition of "full time" in the U.S. Code?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if playing poker full-time or as the only means of earning income are required, but I would predict that playing with some regularity would be a minimum requirement, and if you have a different full-time job, it would be difficult, but not impossible. The trade or business determination is a facts-and-circumstances test. If you think you can make a case and the difference is worth the money, you can become the test case for whether new generation of gamblers are in the business of gambling for tax purposes. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]