- 9 -
King v. Commissioner, supra at 458-459; Liang v.
Commissioner, supra at 1043.
Petitioner has offered into evidence trading records which
substantiate his purchasing and selling of 146 paired purchases
and sales of futures contracts during taxable year 2000. It is
clear from petitioner’s trading records that these activities
sought to profit from short-term market swings. However,
petitioner’s records show trading activities only during the
months of April, May, August, and December of 2000. In fact,
petitioner’s records indicate trading activities on only 20 days
during taxable year 2000.
Further, although petitioner testified that he handled his
securities investments in a businesslike manner, that fact is
irrelevant to our determination of whether he was a trader or a
mere investor. See Higgins v. Commissioner, supra at 213; Moller
v. United States, supra at 814. In Higgins v. Commissioner,
supra at 217, the taxpayer had substantial investments in real
estate, stocks, and bonds. He devoted a considerable amount of
time to oversight of his investments. Id. He maintained two
offices from which he conducted his investment activities. In
his New York office, the taxpayer employed an office manager, an
assistant, an accountant, and a stenographer/clerk. Higgins v.
Commissioner, 39 B.T.A. 1005, 1006 (1939), affd. 111 F.2d 795 (2d
Cir. 1940), affd. 312 U.S. 212 (1941). The taxpayer employed an
additional employee who worked in the Paris office. Id. Despite
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011