- 21 -
Petitioner has not shown that Kidder Peabody exercised any
unauthorized dominion and control over his account by refusing to
terminate it earlier. Petitioner misrepresented the facts in a
letter to the Office of the Attorney General of New York, when he
stated: “In my letter of May 12, 1987, I told them [Kidder
Peabody] that I desired to liquidate the account.” In that
letter, however, petitioner only complained that he had been
placed in “a situation where you [Kidder Peabody] tie my hands
and force liquidation”. Petitioner did not indicate any intent
to liquidate his account; instead he merely sought “a meeting
with you and whoever else at KIDDER, PEABODY has the authority to
make the necessary adjustments to correct the wrongs.”
Petitioner also alleges that he tried to terminate his account
orally before 1991. He offers no substantiation for these
claims, however, and we have no more reason to believe them than
we believe his misrepresentations in the letter he sent to the
attorney general of New York.
B. The Open Transaction Claim
Petitioner fares no better with his contention that he
received the income at issue in an “open transaction” which,
presumably because of his litigation against Kidder Peabody, is
too indefinite to be the subject of taxation in 1991. In rare
and exceptional circumstances, when the fair market value of
property received by a stockholder in exchange for his stock
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011