- 28 -
issues sub nom. Brown v. United States, 976 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir.
1992).
Petitioners here face some of the same problems that Mrs.
Hemmings faced with respect to the ACLI and ELMS transactions.
But, we note that Mr. Hemmings testified that his trading with
E.F. Hutton & Co. and Conti was distinctly different from his
trading with ACLI and ELMS as discussed, supra. Moreover, there
is no evidence in this record that the Conti trading suffered
from the same gremlins that were present in the ACLI and ELMS
alleged trading. Cf. Freytag v. Commissioner, supra. We
conclude that petitioners have not shown that their elections
when the returns were filed were based on a material mistake of
fact and, accordingly, they are not entitled to abandon their
original choice and make untimely elections under ERTA section
508(c) or 509. We apply the general rule that a taxpayer who
makes an elective choice is bound by that choice. Roy H. Park
Broadcasting v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 1093, 1134 (1982).
Charitable Contribution
Although this is a tale seemingly scripted by the ghost of
Damon Runyon, respondent concedes that the gemstones exist and
were donated to the Gospel Mission. While the tale seems
farfetched, there are some gems of truth with which we must deal.
In our findings of fact we have outlined the rather bizarre
genesis of acquiring the gems, and while that genesis is bizarre,
Mr. Hemmings' testimony to that effect, corroborated by other
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011