Robert D. Sparrow - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               On November 23, 1987, Wilson-Davis sold 50,000 shares of NRG           
          on behalf of Mrs. Sparrow for $1,843.  Petitioners received a               
          $1,843 check from Wilson-Davis dated December 1, 1987.  The                 
          $1,843 check was petitioners' proceeds and gain from the sale of            
          NRG, and it should have been included in their 1987 gross income.           
          Petitioners failed to include this $1,843 in their 1987 gross               
          income.                                                                     
               During taxable year 1988, Mr. Sparrow continued to sell                
          stocks and securities.  On May 26, 1988, Mr. Sparrow entered into           
          a second written agreement with Mr. Slaziz to “exchange appraised           
          gemstones for [500,000 shares of Noble worth $125,000 and 660,823           
          shares of NRG worth $33,041].”  Pursuant to this second                     
          agreement, Mr. Sparrow and Mr. Slaziz exchanged the 1,160,823               
          shares of the above mentioned stock for gems valued at $158,154             
          by Mr. Slazis’ appraisal.                                                   
               During 1988, Mr. Sparrow maintained a stock account at                 
          Securities Settlement Corp. (Securities).  On December 19, 1988,            
          Securities sold 403 shares of General Electric Company on behalf            
          of Mr. Sparrow for $18,257.                                                 
                                       OPINION                                        
               Except with respect to respondent's allegation of fraud, the           
          burden of proof is on petitioners to prove that respondent's                
          determinations set forth in the notices of deficiency are wrong.            
          Rule 142(a) and (b); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115                  
          (1933).  Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011