Gary K. Bielfeldt and Carlotta J. Bielfeldt - Page 32

                                       - 32 -                                         

          carryovers) in 1987, 1988, and 1989, respectively,15 and he                 
          reported net long-term capital gains of $4,729,387, $42,213,314,            
          and $53,119,895 on his 1984, 1985, and 1986 returns,                        
          respectively, for which he took into account 60-percent                     
          deductions under section 1202.  We also believe that he was                 
          familiar with the classifications of dealer, trader, or investor.           
          We discussed the difference between a dealer and a trader almost            
          10 years before petitioner first entered the securities industry,           
          see Kemon v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. at 1032-1033, and this                   
          distinction was almost 35 years old at the time that he filed his           
          1984 return.  We also take into account that all of the subject             
          returns were prepared by large, multinational accounting firms,             
          and that the 1985 return noted specifically that petitioner was a           
          "trader", and not an "investor".16  The fact that petitioner did            
          not have himself licensed as a dealer, that he did not consider             


               15 In other words, notwithstanding the multi-million-dollar            
          capital losses that petitioner reportedly incurred during these             
          years, he limited his capital loss deduction for 1987, 1988, and            
          1989 to $3,000 each.  We also note that petitioner reported                 
          "total income" of $44,122,440, $24,267,722, and $58,882 for these           
          respective years, and that he reported that his related tax                 
          liability was $16,243,036, $6,661,226, and $605, respectively.              
               16 Petitioner testified that he retained Coopers & Lybrand             
          to prepare his tax returns because it was more familiar than                
          Peat, Marwick with the securities area.  Petitioner implied                 
          during his testimony that Coopers & Lybrand saw that Peat,                  
          Marwick had incorrectly classified him as a "dealer", and that              
          Coopers & Lybrand amended his 1985 through 1989 returns to                  
          correct Peat, Marwick's mistake.  We are unpersuaded by this                
          testimony.  As a point of fact, petitioner's 1989 tax return                
          classified petitioner as a trader, and this return was prepared             
          by Coopers & Lybrand.                                                       


Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011