- 10 -
due dates of their tax returns for the years in issue. In the
meanwhile, respondent had audited those returns without
disturbing petitioners’ characterization of the gains and losses
from securities transactions as capital and had determined
deficiencies in petitioners’ income taxes, prompting the petition
to this Court. Even assuming arguendo that we did not look to
the revenue procedure for guidance, we would still conclude that
the mark-to-market election on the amendment to petition was made
so late that petitioners are not entitled to abandon the valid
method for reporting capital gains and losses on their tax
returns. Cf. Pac. Natl. Co. v. Welch, 304 U.S. 191, 194-195
(1938) (change from method used on return for reporting gain on
sale to installment method “would require recomputation and
readjustment of tax liability for subsequent years and impose
burdensome uncertainties upon the administration of the revenue
laws”); Wierschem v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 718, 722-724 (1984).
Therefore, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of
material fact that petitioners did not make an effective mark-to-
market election on the amendment to petition to avail themselves
of the benefits of section 475(f). As a result, respondent’s
motion for partial summary judgment will be granted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011