- 12 -
regarding his level of trading activity. Rule 142(a). We
conclude, therefore, that petitioner is an investor regarding his
securities transactions and not a trader. As such, petitioner
was not conducting a trade or business.
Equitable Estoppel
Petitioner argues that correspondence from respondent
requesting further information regarding petitioner's Schedule C
expenses constitutes an audit of petitioner's 1989 Federal income
tax return. Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from
reclassifying petitioner's net losses for 1992 from securities
transactions as ordinary losses because petitioner's securities
transactions during 1989 through 1992 were consummated in a
similar manner, and respondent accepted petitioner's
representation that the securities transactions in 1989 gave rise
to ordinary gains.
It is well established that the estoppel doctrine should be
applied against the Commissioner with the utmost caution and
restraint. Schuster v. Commissioner, 312 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir.
1962), affg. in part and revg. in part 32 T.C. 998 (1959), affg.
in part and revg. in part First Western Bank & Trust Co. v.
Commissioner, 32 T.C. 1017 (1959); Boulez v. Commissioner, 76
T.C. 209, 214-215 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987);
Estate of Emerson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617 (1977).
Taxpayers must prove at least the following elements before
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011