- 23 -
of petitioner’s account. Petitioner is taxable both on the
$246,976.40 that he received and on the portion of the sale
proceeds retained by Kidder Peabody.
Petitioner also had the burden of proving how much gain or
loss he realized on the sale of stock owned by him; such proof
requires that he establish his basis in the stock. See sec.
1012; Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1027, 1038 (1989); sec.
1.1012-1(c), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner is a certified public
accountant, and the record shows that he is aware that gain on
the sale of stock represents the amount received over the basis.7
See sec. 1001(a).
Despite repeated invitations by respondent and by the Court
to prove his basis in the stock sold, petitioner has failed to do
so. He has left the Court with no choice but to hold him liable
on all the proceeds from the sale of the stock. See Rockwell v.
Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo.
1972-133. Petitioner thus may end up paying more in capital
7 Petitioner knew of the importance of establishing his
basis in the securities sold. In proceedings on his motion to
continue, petitioner explained “if the Tax Court says that, Mr.
Golub, we still believe that this is income to you * * * then
that’s a basis problem * * * then at best there’s a basis
computation problem * * * for me”. Additionally, petitioner’s
pretrial memorandum urges that Kidder Peabody, rather than he
himself, was taxable on the sale proceeds. In so stating, he
contended that Kidder Peabody “SHALL BE MADE TO ANSWER AND PAY
FOR THE TAX ON THE CONVERTED ASSETS, WHILE ASCRIBING A ZERO BASIS
AS THE PENALTY FOR SUCH OUTRAGEOUS, MALICIOUS CONDUCT.”
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011