J.J. Zand - Page 139

                                        - 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 to                    







Page:  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