- 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