Tom I. Lincir and Diane C. Lincir - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         

               comparable adjustments in Rivera v. Commissioner, Tax                  
               Court Docket Nos. 41343-85 and 22921-86 ("CONTROLLING                  
               CASES").                                                               
                                                                                     
               The above-mentioned "controlling cases" are two of seven               
          consolidated cases reported as Leema Enterprises, Inc. v.                   
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-18.  Therein we addressed issues              
          concerning the Merit T-bill and stock forward trades and held               
          that--                                                                      
               the Merit markets lacked economic substance.  Although                 
               the form appeared as markets for particular financial                  
               instruments, the substance was the creation of                         
               straddles to generate loss deductions without                          
               corresponding economic losses. * * * In short, the                     
               Merit trades * * * cannot support the losses claimed.                  
               We alternatively held that, even if the transactions had               
          substance, the individual Merit investors' "primary objective was           
          obtaining tax benefits", and thus they "failed to meet the                  
          statutory requirements for deducting the losses at issue".                  
               Our holding in Leema Enterprises, Inc., accordingly disposes           
          of the Merit T-bill and stock forward losses at issue here.  For            
          the reasons stated therein, those losses are not allowed in this            
          case.                                                                       
               The parties have also entered into a "Second Stipulation of            
          Facts" wherein they agreed "that all transactions involving the             
          Arbitrage and Carry ('A/C') program promoted by Futures Trading,            
          Inc. ('FTI') will be ignored for Federal income tax purposes".2             


          2    In four consolidated cases, Seykota v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 1991-234, supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1991-541, we addressed           
          issues concerning the FTI A/C transactions.  Therein we held that           
          the FTI A/C program was an economic sham and disallowed                     
                                                             (continued...)           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011