26 C.F.R. § 44.4401-2

Person liable for tax

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. (1) Every person engaged in the business of accepting wagers with respect to a sports event or a contest is liable for the tax on any such wager accepted by him. Every person who operates a wagering pool or lottery conducted for profit is liable for the tax with respect to any wager or contribution placed in such pool or lottery. To be liable for the tax, it is not necessary that the person engaged in the business of accepting wagers or operating a wagering pool or lottery physically receive the wager or contribution. Any wager or contribution received by an agent or employee on behalf of such person shall be considered to have been accepted by and placed with such person.

(2) Any person required to register under section 4412 by reason of having received wagers for or on behalf of another person, but who fails to register the name and place of residence of such other person (hereinafter in this subparagraph referred to as principal), shall be liable for the tax on all wagers received by him during the period in which he has failed to so register the name and place of residence of such principal. Subsequent compliance with section 4412 by the person receiving wagers for another does not relieve him of his liability and duty to pay such tax, nor will the fact that such person incurs liability with respect to the tax on such wagers, relieve his principal of liability for the tax imposed under section 4401 with respect to such wagers. Accordingly, both the person receiving the wagers and his principal shall be liable for the tax on such wagers until the tax is paid. Payment of the tax on such wagers shall not relieve the person receiving wagers of any penalty for failure to register as required by section 4412. This subparagraph has application only to wagers received after September 2, 1958.

(b) In business of accepting wagers. A person is engaged in the business of accepting wagers if he makes it a practice to accept wagers with respect to which he assumes the risk of profit or loss depending upon the outcome of the event or the contest with respect to which the wager is accepted. It is not intended that to be engaged in the business of accepting wagers a person must be either so engaged to the exclusion of all other activities or even primarily so engaged. Thus, for example, an individual may be primarily engaged in business as a salesman, and also for the purpose of the tax be engaged in the business of accepting wagers.

(c) Lay-offs. If a person engaged in the business of accepting wagers or conducting a lottery or betting pool for profits lays off all or part of the wagers placed with him with another person engaged in the business of accepting wagers or conducting a betting pool or lottery for profit, he shall, notwithstanding such lay-off, be liable for the tax on the wagers or contributions initially accepted by him. See § 44.6419-2 for credit and refund provisions applicable with respect to laid-off wagers.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1968–1981 · leading case: John Owen Tyler v. United States, 397 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1968).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John Owen Tyler v. United States, 397 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1968). · cites it 3× “— The term ‘wager’ means— (A) Any wager with respect to a sports event or a contest placed with a person engaged in the business of accepting such wagers, * * * ” Also 26 CFR, Section 44.4401-2, provides, in part, as follows: “Person liable for tax — (a) In general.”

William Dark, D/B/A Delmar Race & Sports Club v. United States, 641 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1981). “Treasury Regulation on Wagering Tax (1954 Code), 26 C.F.R. § 44.4401-2 (a)(l). Dark argues that because his employees were performing actions that were illegal and thus not associated with employment, they were not acting “on [his] behalf.”

Griffin v. United States, 588 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1979). “” 26 C.F.R. § 44.4401-2 (b). Except for the “very few” bets that Griffin personally wrote, see notes 10 & 11 supra, the jury could reasonably have found that he did not stand to win or lose depending on the number selected for the day.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.