- 13 -
her counsel, posed to Mr. Gordon at trial. In our view, those
questions and Mr. Gordon's responses to them did not elucidate
his testimony about the nature and extent of his alleged hedging
activities during 1986. Ms. Gordon's counsel could have asked
Mr. Gordon, but did not, whether he was engaged in any hedging
activities in addition to the hedging activities about which he
testified. If Mr. Gordon's response to that question had been in
the affirmative, Ms. Gordon's counsel could have further clari-
fied the record by asking Mr. Gordon to identify all the property
that he claimed he hedged and all the property that he claimed he
used as a hedge and to describe his activities relating to the
property that he claimed he hedged so that we could have made a
determination as to whether that property was property any loss
with respect to which would have been an ordinary loss in Mr.
Gordon's hands. See sec. 1256(f)(3)(B).
It is also significant that although Ms. Gordon contends in
her motion that, based on the record presented to us, we could,
and should, have found in our Opinion that Mr. Gordon did not
hold the options that generated the 1986 net trading loss for the
purposes specified in section 1256(f)(3)(B), Ms. Gordon did not
propose that we find any facts relating to Mr. Gordon's alleged
hedging activities or otherwise relating to the requirements of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011