- 11 -
"ordinary". Accordingly, we are left to consider only the other
aspect of that term; i.e., whether the payment of the fine was
"normal, usual, or customary" in petitioner's business. It is
clear that petitioner's payment of the CME fine settled the
disciplinary proceedings and allowed petitioner to resume his
business activities without further disruption. In that context,
we view petitioner's payment of the CME fine as a response that
could ordinarily be expected from one in petitioner's situation.
In that sense, petitioner's payment of the CME fine was "normal".
Respondent argues that engaging in transactions in violation
of the CME's rules was not an ordinary part of petitioner's
business. Nonetheless, within the context and meaning of the
statute allowing deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses,
a private wrongdoing in the course of conducting a business is
not extraordinary. Helvering v. Hampton, 79 F.2d 358, 360-361
(9th Cir. 1935), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of the Board of Tax
Appeals dated Aug. 12, 1932; Vanderbilt v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1957-235. Moreover, even if improper conduct were
extraordinary in business, the payment of a settlement or
judgment attributable to the conduct is generally expected to be
made by the person in the course of whose business the conduct
occurred. Helvering v. Hampton, supra at 361.
During relevant periods, other disciplinary proceedings
charging violations of the CME's rules, and the payment of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011