- 32 -
received, let alone reasonably relied upon, any competent
professional advice concerning that reporting change. In fact,
the accountant’s own testimony indicates that he lacked
sufficient knowledge to render competent advice on the subject.
We are unpersuaded that petitioners lacked sophistication in tax
matters.
We also disagree with petitioners’ assertion that the
accuracy-related penalties generally relate to the “unsettled”
law on day trading. The law in this area has been well settled
for many years in that courts have consistently held that a sale
of securities may result in ordinary losses only when the
securities are held primarily for sale to customers in the
ordinary course of business. Bielfeldt v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-394 (and cases cited therein), affd. 231 F.3d 1035
(7th Cir. 2000). Petitioners, by contrast, traded solely for
their own account and never held securities primarily for sale
(or actually sold securities) to customers in the ordinary course
of a trade or business. We conclude that petitioners are liable
for the accuracy-related penalties determined by respondent,
except as otherwise conceded by respondent.
All arguments made by the parties and not discussed herein
have been rejected as meritless. Accordingly,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Last modified: May 25, 2011