- 217 - purchased stock through Mr. Castoe on one or two occasions. Petitioner has failed to show how the payments made to or on behalf of Mr. Castoe constitute his ordinary and necessary business expense. He has not shown how Mr. Castoe's activities relate to his trade or business of representing U.S. manufacturers selling machinery or developing real estate. Commissions paid to a stockbroker are taken into account in computing the gain or loss on the sale of stock. Such amounts are not ordinary and necessary business expenses because the expenses of an investor are not trade or business expenses. Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212 (1941). In addition, petitioner has not established a relationship between the payments made to or on behalf of Mr. Castoe and any investments he may have made through Mr. Castoe. For these reasons, we sustain respondent's determination. For the years 1978 and 1979 petitioner deducted fees paid to his brother, I.J. Zand, in the amounts of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. Petitioner maintains that these payments are deductible due to a fee splitting arrangement he had with his brother concerning an agreement petitioner had with Harris Corporation. Petitioner substantiated the payment to I.J. Zand in the amount of $100,000 for the year 1978, and respondent concedes that amount. However, petitioner has failed toPage: Previous 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011