- 30 -
Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, supra (partnership was a dealer
of securities even though its sales were made primarily to
brokers on the New York Stock Exchange; partnership had
established place of business, held itself out as a dealer, and,
most importantly, did not buy the securities for investment or
speculation).
Fourth, the fact that petitioner did not perform any
merchandising functions or any other services which would have
warranted a markup in the price of his Treasury securities is
indicative of a trader. See Kelly v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-529; Furer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-165, affd.
without published opinion 33 F.3d 58 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner
used B&C's facilities and personnel to trade the securities, and
he never received any remuneration for working as a middleman
because he never brought a buyer and seller together. His
securities were as easily accessible to one as to the other;
thus, he profited only when his securities rose in value between
the time that he bought them and the time that he sold them. See
Kemon v. Commissioner, supra at 1033. The inability to mark up a
security for reasons other than value appreciation is not
indicative of a dealer. See Frankel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1989-39.
Fifth, the fact that petitioner did not consider himself a
dealer during the relevant time militates against classifying him
as a dealer. If petitioner had in fact been a dealer, he would
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