Jayne A. Briseno calls herself a recreational gambler.

And how. The casinos at which she played slot machines reported paying Briseno $139,714 in 2001 and $459,397 in 2002. That's a lot of recreation. But because she was playing the slots, the California resident was also losing. The issue for U.S. Tax Court Judge Harry Allen Haines, in his opinion issued Thursday, was figuring out what those losses were.

Briseno did not keep contemporary records making note of how much she was losing. Bad for her. The government's position seemed to be that since Briseno couldn't prove her losses, she would owe taxes on her entire take. Her gross became her net, so to speak. Judge Haines, though, reasoned otherwise. Noted the judge:

"She gambled frequently and when she won she would often “reinvest” those winnings in the slot machines, losing much or all of what she hadwon.  We regard it as a virtual certainty that petitioner, playing a game of chance frequently over the course of several years, placed many losing bets in addition to her winning ones."

Further noting that "we are not aware of a case in which a taxpayer received winnings from a game of chance of the magnitude petitioner received, but was not entitled to a penny of offsetting loss."

Judge Haines determined he would have to estimate Briseno's losses. Without fully explaining his methodology, the judge then assigned losses of $83,828 for 2001 and $275,638 for 2002. In both cases, as it turns out, the losses amount to 59 percent of the earnings.

A conservative estimate, if Suits & Sentences' experience with the slots is any measure.