Linda Olson - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          the record before us, the dispositive facts of this case, as we             
          see it, are fourfold.  First, petitioner intended to effect a               
          distribution of the subject shares into petitioner’s account                
          during 2000.  Second, she relayed that intent to Prudential                 
          during 2000.  Third, Prudential carried out that intent during              
          2000 by transferring the subject shares into petitioner’s                   
          account.  Fourth, petitioner during the last 10 months of 2000              
          knowingly enjoyed the benefit of the added value of those shares.           
               We hold for respondent.3  All arguments in this case have              
          been considered, and those arguments not discussed herein are               
          without merit or inapplicable to our decision.4                             

                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for respondent.                          





               3 Petitioner’s request for a contrary holding is most likely           
          driven by the fact that our holding means that she is liable for            
          2000 Federal income tax on the value of the subject shares at the           
          time of distribution, yet her recognition of any loss realized as           
          to those shares is generally limited to $3,000 per year.                    
               4 Petitioner asserts that the value of the subject shares              
          must be discounted because they were restricted shares which                
          could not be transferred publicly.  Even if we were to assume               
          that petitioner is correct in her assertion that the subject                
          shares could not be transferred publicly, an assertion which may            
          actually be incorrect given the many exceptions set forth in rule           
          144 of the Securities Act of 1933, 17 C.F.R. sec. 230.144 (2004),           
          for public transfers, we do not find (nor has petitioner pointed            
          us to) any evidence in the record upon which to determine such a            
          discount.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  

Last modified: May 25, 2011