Roger Steven Lewis - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         

          was opened to the date it was closed during 1997.  Petitioner               
          offered one statement from GE on the account dated October 27,              
          1995, for the period October 26, 1994, to October 25, 1995.  That           
          statement shows that, at the beginning of the period, petitioner            
          had a balance of 56.6504 shares in GE.  Between that date and the           
          ending date for that statement (October 25, 1995), there were 12            
          transactions in the account in which dividends were paid and used           
          to purchase fractional shares of GE, and cash payments were made            
          to the account by petitioner, which were also used to purchase              
          fractional shares in GE.  The statement shows the cost of the               
          stock for each of these transactions but does not state the cost            
          of the 56.6504 shares that were in the account at the beginning             
          date of the statement, nor the cost of the 64.2886 shares held in           
          the account on October 25, 1995.                                            
               Of the 12 transactions listed on the statement of the                  
          account offered into evidence, petitioner highlighted 9                     
          transactions on that statement that he contends constituted the             
          cost or basis for the 13.3048 shares he converted into cash when            
          he closed the account with GE on May 19, 1997.2                             
               Under section 1001(a), gain from the sale or other                     

               2    Sometime after the date of the statement, GE declared a           
          two for one stock split.  The 13.3048 shares petitioner converted           
          into cash during 1997 represented stock for which petitioner had            
          received the benefit of the split.  Therefore, in determining               
          petitioner's basis in the transaction at issue, the Court, in               
          relying on the account statement described, adjusted for the                
          effect of the split.                                                        

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011