- 16 -
he did so with the intent to mislead Delk. Respondent has not
shown that petitioner knew the bases of the shares he sold in
1988 and 1989 or that he intentionally gave Delk incorrect
information.
Respondent disputes petitioner’s claim that he told Delk
about the errors on petitioner’s 1988 and 1989 organizers.
Despite respondent’s suspicions, respondent offered no credible
evidence to the contrary. Neither party called Delk to testify
due to his poor health.
Respondent argues that petitioner did not cooperate with
respondent's agents because he did not give Sexton all of the
documents she requested. Petitioner provided a substantial
amount of documents to Sexton in response to her requests, and
petitioner or Delk attended meetings with Sexton. Respondent did
not show what documents petitioner gave Sexton, and so we cannot
evaluate respondent’s contention that petitioner was so
uncooperative as to constitute a badge of fraud.
Respondent contends: (a) Petitioner’s testimony that
he thought he had a basis of about $4 per share in the OPCS stock
he sold in 1988 was not credible, (b) petitioner did not explain
why petitioners reported sales of high basis stock on their 1988
return when SEC rule 144 barred him from selling stock he had
acquired within 2 years, and (c) petitioner knew that his 1988
organizer was in error. Respondent relies on these points in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011