- 4 -
amounts of $3,237, $10,255, $3,354, $2,512, $3,193, $9,775, and
$6,730. The proceeds from USC were for sales in the respective
amounts of $6,487 and $9,862. As to the sales of $3,237,
$10,255, $3,193, and $9,775, petitioner’s basis in the underlying
stock was $4,371, $8,738, $3,775, and $10,493, respectively, and
his gain or loss on the sales was ($1,134), $1,517, ($582), and
$718, respectively. The record does not establish petitioner’s
basis as to the stock underlying any of the other sales. Nor
does the record establish petitioner’s holding period as to any
of the sales.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined
petitioner’s gross income on the basis of income reported to
respondent by petitioner’s payors. That income included the
amounts of wages, interest, dividends, and stock proceeds stated
above.2 Respondent also determined in the notice of deficiency
that petitioner’s filing status was “Married filing separate
return”.
OPINION
1. Burden of Proof
Taxpayers generally must prove the Commissioner’s
determinations wrong in order to prevail. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). As one exception to this
2 As to the stock proceeds, respondent gave petitioner
credit for the bases mentioned above and treated the gains and
losses as short-term capital gains and losses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011