- 29 -
securities. The mere fact that petitioner may have traded
Treasury securities regularly and extensively does not
necessarily mean, as petitioner would have us hold, that any
purchaser of those securities was a customer of his. A profit
motive that hinges on a hope or expectation of prospering from a
rise in the value of a security is not indicative of a dealer.
See United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d at 1051-1052; see also Marrin
v. Commissioner, supra at 151.
Third, petitioner's pool of purchasers was not indicative of
that of a dealer. His pool was almost exclusively primary
dealers, and most of his trades were effectuated through two of
those dealers; namely, Salomon Brothers, Inc., and Goldman, Sachs
& Co. He sold many of his securities to the same primary dealer
from whom he had bought them. See Van Suetendael v.
Commissioner, 152 F.2d at 654; MacAdam v. Commissioner, supra.
Such a pool of purchasers as that maintained by petitioner is not
indicative of a dealer. Accord Marrin v. Commissioner, 147 F.3d
147 (2d Cir. 1998) (taxpayer who bought stock from a broker and
sold it to the same or another broker was not entitled to
ordinary loss treatment); Faroll v. Jarecki, 231 F.2d 281 (7th
Cir. 1956) (taxpayer who traded futures contracts on the floor of
the CBT on his own behalf, and not for the account of the
partnership of which he was a member or for any customer of the
partnership, did not hold the contracts primarily for sale to
customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business); cf.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011