29
We respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit's analysis of the above legislative
history. See our explanation of the above legislative history in
Stoller v. Commissioner, 60 T.C.M. (CCH) at 1565, with which we
agree. It suffices here to reiterate what we stated in Vickers
v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 394, 410-411 (1983) (in the context of
commodity futures contracts), with regard to section 1234A:
Whether new section 1234A is viewed as a change in the law
in some areas or as merely removing all doubt that sales or
exchange treatment is to be accorded to certain dispositions
of property, we think Congress clearly did not intend to
upset the sale or exchange treatment that had long been
accorded to speculative commodity futures transactions of
the type involved in the present case. [Citation omitted.]
Petitioners argue that the proper venue for appeal of these
cases is to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit and therefore that under Golsen v. Commissioner,
54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), we are
bound to follow the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Stoller v. Commissioner, supra.
At the time the respective petitions in these cases were
filed, however, petitioners resided as follows:
Petitioners Residence
Audrey H. Israel New Jersey
Barry W. Gray, Executor representing
the Estate of Leon Israel, Jr.* New York
Jonathan P. and Margaret A. Wolff New York
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011