Peter K. Chow - Page 10

                                        - 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