- 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