Robert C. and Gail K. Racine - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          petitioners received income in 2000 when petitioner Gail Racine             
          (Mrs. Racine) exercised her nonstatutory stock options through a            
          margin account and whether petitioners are liable for the                   
          accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for 2000.  We hold           
          that petitioners received income in 2000 when Mrs. Racine                   
          exercised her stock options, but petitioners are not liable for             
          the accuracy-related penalty for 2000.                                      
                                     Background                                       
               The parties agree that there is no genuine issue of material           
          fact regarding the stock option issue and that a decision may be            
          rendered as a matter of law.  The facts concerning the accuracy-            
          related penalty have been fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122.2           
          These facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein           
          by this reference.  Petitioners, husband and wife, resided in               
          Elburn, Illinois, at the time they filed the petition.                      
               Mrs. Racine was employed by Allegiance Telecom, Inc.                   
          (Allegiance) during the 2000 tax year.  As a part of her                    
          compensation package, she was granted nonstatutory employee stock           
          options to acquire Allegiance shares.  Mrs. Racine used her stock           


               2This case was originally before the Court for hearing                 
          petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment and respondent’s           
          cross-motion for summary judgment.  At the hearing, a joint                 
          motion was filed for leave to submit case under Rule 122.  The              
          parties agreed that the accuracy-related penalty portion of this            
          case could be fully stipulated for decision.  At the conclusion             
          of the hearing, the Court took the parties’ respective motions              
          under advisement.                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011