- 10 -
at 1043. Petitioner’s problem is that he fails to satisfy the
second, equally important requirement for trader status, that his
purchases and sales of securities be “frequent, regular, and
continuous”. See Boatner v. Commissioner, supra.
Because 303, or approximately 94 percent, of the 323
transactions in which petitioner either purchased or sold
securities during 1999 occurred in the February to April
timeframe, with the balance occurring in January, May, and July
and no trades occurring in any of the other 6 months,
petitioner’s 1999 trading activity reasonably qualified as
“frequent, regular, and continuous” only during February, March,
and April.5 Moreover, throughout 1999, petitioner maintained a
full-time job as a computer chip engineer.
In the cases in which taxpayers have been held to be traders
in securities, the number and frequency of transactions indicated
that they were engaged in market transactions almost daily for a
substantial and continuous period, generally exceeding a single
taxable year; and those activities constituted the taxpayers’
sole or primary income-producing activity. See Levin v. United
5 In his purported election of the mark-to-market
accounting method, petitioner represents that he became a “daily
trader” as of Jan. 1, 1999. Moreover, his 2000 and 2001 returns
report his gains and losses from purchases and sales of
securities on Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, not on
Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business. Thus, the evidence
indicates that petitioner’s daily trading activities occurred
only during the 3 months of February, March, and April 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011