- 35 -
characterizes petitioner as a trader even though his trading
activity may have resembled the activities of a dealer in some
respects. See 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 did not sell the stock to
customers); 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 did not sell the contracts to customers).
We sustain respondent's determination on this issue. In so
doing, we have considered all arguments made by petitioner for a
contrary holding, and, to the extent not addressed above, find
them to be irrelevant or without merit.
Because other issues remain to be tried,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Last modified: May 25, 2011