- 13 -
motivated. * * * [Mr. Resser] traded on only 6 days in
the QRF account, establishing a total of 9 spreads.
The spreads established on September 30 and October 1
did not close any previously acquired leg and no gains
or losses were realized on those dates. On October 11,
1982, * * * [Mr. Resser's] trading resulted in the
realization of a $188,896 loss. On October 13, 1982,
* * * [Mr. Resser] established a butterfly spread and
simultaneously closed an April 70 call leg realizing a
loss of $275,181. On October 14, 1982, * * * [Mr.
Resser's] closing of prior transactions resulted in a
net loss of $657,071.
On October 14, 1982, * * * [Mr. Resser's] Customer
Account Status Report disclosed that he had open
positions in his [QRF] account containing unrealized
profits totaling $1,139,837. If * * * [Mr. Resser]
would have closed all his positions on October 14, the
net economic gain would have been approximately
$18,689. The record indicates that * * * [Mr. Resser]
consistently liquidated his loss legs and left the
majority of his profitable legs open until the next
taxable year. * * * [Mr. Resser's] Customer Account
Status Report for December 17, 1982, indicated that the
open positions in his account contained unrealized
profits of $872,075. The net gains realized in 1983
resulting from the closure of those open option
positions as of December 17, 1982, totaled $871,874.
[Resser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-423.]
Petitioners argued that the facts of their case were similar
enough to the facts of Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101,
(1989), to warrant a decision that Mr. Resser's motivation was
the same as the taxpayer's in Laureys. As mentioned, Laureys
involved a registered market maker with the CBOE who engaged in
TDY option spread transactions similar to Mr. Resser's TDY
spreads. In Laureys, this Court found that there was no direct
evidence of tax planning or motivation on the taxpayer's part and
concluded:
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011