                           T.C. Memo. 1995-602



                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          VICTORIA AND DENIS M. LYSZKOWSKI, Petitioners v.
            COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15038-94.                    Filed December 21, 1995.



     Denis M. Lyszkowski, pro se.

     Linda Ann Love, for respondent.


                            MEMORANDUM OPINION


     PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:          This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180,

181, and 182.1    Respondent determined a deficiency in the amount

of $377 in petitioners' Federal income tax for the tax year ended



     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in issue. All Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                    - 2 -

1991.    The issue for decision is whether slot machine winnings

received by petitioner Denis M. Lyszkowski constitute gross

income pursuant to section 61.

     The facts in this case have been fully stipulated and are so

found.    The stipulated facts and attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.         At the time of filing the

petition herein, petitioners resided at Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

     In 1991, Denis M. Lyszkowski (petitioner) received gambling

winnings totaling $2,500 from slot machine play at Caesar's

Boardwalk Regency (Caesar's) in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Federal income taxes were not withheld from these gambling

winnings.    Petitioner received a Form W-2G from Caesar's with

respect to the slot machine winnings.         Petitioners did not report

the $2,500 as gross income on their jointly filed 1991 Federal

income tax return.     Respondent issued a notice of deficiency

dated May 24, 1994, reflecting a $2,500 increase in petitioners'

gross income.    Petitioners filed a timely petition with this

Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.2

     The thrust of petitioners' argument is that the $2,500 in

slot machine winnings is not taxable income.           Petitioners base

this conclusion on several grounds, namely: (1) Slot machine

     2
        We note that at the calendar call petitioners filed a motion to
withdraw their petition. The Court denied the motion. Once a timely petition
is filed in response to a notice of deficiency, we have exclusive
jurisdiction. Sec. 6512(a). It is well established that "a taxpayer may not
unilaterally oust the Tax Court from jurisdiction which, once invoked, remains
unimpaired until it decides the controversy." Dorl v. Commissioner, 57 T.C.
720, 722 (1972), affd. 507 F.2d 406 (2d Cir. 1974).
                               - 3 -

winnings are exempt from tax pursuant to section 3402(q)(5); (2)

petitioner was not legally required to sign the Form W-2G when he

received his slot machine winnings; (3) petitioner withdrew his

signature on the Form W-2G, thereby removing himself from its

legally binding terms; and (4) the Commissioner has no authority

to issue section 7.6041-1, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 42

Fed. Reg. 1471 (Jan. 7, 1977), as amended by 42 Fed. Reg. 33286

(June 30, 1977), requiring payers of slot machine winnings to

issue Forms W-2G to payees.

     Respondent argues that winnings from slot machines are

includable in gross income and are, therefore, taxable.     In

addition, respondent asserts that the Commissioner has the

authority to issue section 7.6041-1, Temporary Proced. & Admin.

Regs., supra, which requires payers of slot machine winnings to

issue Forms W-2G to payees.   Respondent concludes that, although

section 3402 exempts slot machine winnings from withholding at

the source, such winnings are not exempt from taxation.

     Petitioner's arguments are substantially identical to those

he advanced before this Court regarding the taxability of his

1989 and 1990 slot machine winnings.     We found that petitioner

had slot machine winnings in 1989 and 1990 in the amounts of $1

million and $2,500, respectively.      See Lyszkowski v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-235, on appeal (3d Cir., Sept. 5,

1995).   In that case, we painstakingly addressed each of

petitioner's arguments before concluding that the slot machine
                                - 4 -

winnings were taxable.    We explained that although section 3402

exempts slot machine winnings from withholding, this section

applies to payers and not to the "ultimate tax liability of the

payees who receive such winnings".      In addition, we noted that

petitioner was confusing the exemption from withholding with an

exemption from gross income.    We also held that petitioner's

challenge to the Treasury Department's authority to promulgate

section 7.6041-1, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, was

without merit.

     There is no question that petitioner's slot machine winnings

represent gross income.    See United States v. Monteiro, 871 F.2d

204 (1st Cir. 1989); Johnston v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 106

(1955).    We agree with the analysis presented in Lyszkowski v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-235.      We perceive no need to

explain again why the slot machines winnings are taxable income.

     The remainder of petitioner's arguments appear to challenge

the authority of the Internal Revenue Service generally.      We will

not address arguments which appear to be a protest of the Federal

income tax laws.    As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

noted:    "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with

somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so

might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."

Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see

also Sauers v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1985),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-367.
                              - 5 -

     Based on the foregoing, respondent's determination is

sustained.

                                      Decision will be entered

                              for respondent.
