- 31 -
have been required to register as such with the SEC, the NASD,
and the Illinois secretary of state. Yet, he did not register
with any of these agencies.14 Nor did he advertise himself as a
dealer. One need only examine his tax returns as originally
filed to understand that he did not consider himself a dealer at
the time of their filings. None of these returns reported that
he was a dealer in Treasury securities. They reported that his
gains and losses were capital. Although he testified that he did
not know when he originally filed his returns that the Federal
tax laws differentiated between gains and losses that were
capital as opposed to ordinary, we find this testimony illogical
when considered in the light of the record as a whole.
Petitioner is an intelligent man who, when he filed his 1984 tax
return, had been working for more than 25 years. During each
year in issue, he had experienced the benefits of capital gains
and the burdens of capital losses; he reported that he was unable
to deduct currently $29,457,311, $48,900,546, and $93,752,481 of
capital losses that he realized (exclusive of any prior year
14 Petitioner and B&C's chief financial officer testified
that they believed that petitioner did not have to register
individually because he and B&C were one and the same. We do not
find this testimony persuasive. Even if petitioner did believe
that he and B&C were one and the same when it came to partnership
business, a finding that petitioner asks the Court to make but
which we are unable to make because of a lack of substantiation,
the subject trading of Treasury securities was not partnership
business. It was an activity that petitioner conducted
independently of B&C. Moreover, petitioner reported the gains
and losses therefrom on his personal income tax return.
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