Fernando Barba v. United States
United States Claims Court
2 Cl.Ct. 674 (1983)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Fernando Barba (plaintiff) was a Mexican citizen not engaged in business in the United States. Barba vacationed in Nevada in 1980 and won $61,580 playing keno at two casinos. Hilton and Harrah’s casinos withheld and paid $18,474 of Barba’s proceeds to the Internal Revenue Service. Barba reported his winnings on a nonresident alien income tax return and requested a tax refund. When that tactic did not work, Barba filed a formal claim for a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service also disallowed. Barba filed suit against the United States (defendant) for his refund. Barba also pleaded that he had over $475,000 in gambling losses at the Hilton for the 1980 tax year, which Barba argued should offset his winnings. The main question was whether Barba’s gambling winnings were fixed, determinable, annual, or periodical (FDAP) income. If the winnings were FDAP income, the income was properly taxable, and if not, then the winnings were not taxable. Barba argued that his gambling winnings were uncertain and thus not within the definition of taxable income. As noted, Barba also argued that his gambling losses should offset his winnings. The government discredited both arguments, and, after Barba filed suit, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
