Phyllis E. Campbell - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          status as a nominee with no control over the funds in the account           
          dissociates her from the London straddle.                                   
               As stated previously, petitioner did not derive a                      
          significant benefit from the gains in her account.  Most of                 
          petitioner’s $3.5 million gain in 1983 was used by Mr. Campbell             
          to offset the losses he sustained in Refco Foods Too.  The money            
          invested in the London straddle was never returned to petitioner.           
          As a result of the London straddle transactions, petitioner lost            
          access to $2.6 million in her Refco account, and there is no                
          evidence that petitioner benefited from the $314,000 tax refund             
          the Campbells received from their 1983 taxes.                               
               Further, the London straddle was a series of sophisticated             
          transactions that looked legitimate on paper.  A reasonable                 
          person with petitioner’s educational background, devoid of any              
          specific knowledge in options trading, could not be expected to             
          discover that the trades were fictitious.  It took a complex                
          Federal investigation to figure out that the trades were not                
          legitimate.  As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit                 
          commented when it considered the status of a spouse whose husband           
          invested in a transaction designed as an income tax shelter:                
          “‘[courts] recognize that in the bewildering world of tax shelter           
          deductions, few experts, let alone laypersons, easily discern the           
          difference between a fraudulent scheme and an exceptionally                 
          advantageous legal loophole in the tax code.’”  Resser v.                   






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011