Olk v. United States, 536 F.2d 876, 76-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9484 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920, 97 S. Ct. 317 (1976), was a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which dealt with the question of whether tips (or "tokes") to casino dealers were taxable as income to the dealers under Internal Revenue Code section 61 or, alternatively, nontaxable gifts under Internal Revenue Code section 102(a). Facts In 1971, the plaintiff was employed as a craps dealer in two Las Vegas casinos. Dealers would at times receive money from the players as "tokes," which are similar to tips. The major difference between tips and "tokes" is that the casino workers do not perform specific services for customers. In fact, their contracts prohibited any such services other than the task of running the various games. This money would be collected and split evenly among the four dealers at the craps table at the end of each shift. This particular plaintiff received an average of $30 per day combined from his two casino jobs. The district court in this case made two "findings of fact" that were relevant to the Court of Appeals decision. The first was that the tips were the result of "impulsive generosity" on the part of the players, and the second is that the tips were the result of "detached and disinterested generosity." These findings led the district court to find that the tips were gifts and not income for tax purposes under the test established in Commissioner v. Duberstein. This is relevant because gifts are not included in gross income for federal tax purposes. Issue The issue in this case was whether the trial court erred in such "findings of fact" that led to the determination of holding that the tips to dealers were gifts and not income for federal tax purposes. Holding The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court, holding that the tips did in fact constitute income, and the district court erred in making findings to the contrary. Reasoning The Court began by stating that the conclusion that the tips were made out of "detached and disinterested generosity" was a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact, and as such the Court did not need to give any deference to the trial court's finding on that point. The