- 45 -
pledged shares by Merrill Lynch implies that, under SEC Rule 144,
Mr. Rendall might have been restricted from selling his Solv-Ex
shares, petitioners stipulated (without objection by respondent)
that the correspondence was offered “for the limited purpose of
showing the existence of a controversy over the sale of the stock
[by Merrill Lynch], and not for the facts or legal opinions
contained therein.” Moreover, Mr. Rendall was not offered as a
Federal securities law expert. Therefore, we find no credible
evidence in the record that Mr. Rendall was restricted by law
from selling his Solv-Ex shares over the counter as of December
31, 1997.
Nor have petitioners furnished any evidence in support of
their claim that the “pink sheet” value of the Solv-Ex common
stock as of December 31, 1997, $3 a share, bore no relationship
to the market value of Mr. Rendall’s shares on account of the
small daily volume of trades. Even if we were to assume that
Solv-Ex was trading in lots of 100 to 200 shares at the end of
1997, that fact would not establish the worthlessness of Mr.
Rendall’s shares at that time. See Jones v. Commissioner, 29
B.T.A. 928, 931 (1934) (“The fact that the petitioner could not
find any purchaser for his shares at the time he offered them for
sale is not conclusive evidence * * * that they were worthless”);
West End Pottery Co. v. Commissioner, 7 B.T.A. 927, 929 (1927)
(the lack of a ready market for stock does not establish
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011