- 2 -
his wholly owned corporation, James Trading Co., Inc. (James
Trading), during 1991 and 1992; (2) whether petitioner was a
"dealer", "trader", or "investor" with respect to net losses he
sustained from trading securities and/or commodities (securities
transactions) on behalf of James Trading during 1992;2 and (3)
whether respondent is estopped from reclassifying petitioner's
net losses from securities transactions on behalf of James
Trading in 1992 as capital losses.
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Los
Angeles, California, at the time he filed his petition.
Petitioner has practiced law in California since 1985.
On August 16, 1990, petitioner filed his 1989 individual
Federal income tax return without attaching a Schedule C for his
2 Respondent contends that petitioner was an investor as
opposed to a dealer, and therefore petitioner's net losses were
capital instead of ordinary. Petitioner deducted expenses from
his securities transactions on his Schedule C. In support
thereof, petitioner argues that he was in a trade or business.
Although petitioner fails to address directly the dealer/trader
distinction, we assume that his trade or business argument was
intended to encompass an argument for trader classification if we
conclude that he was not a dealer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011