- 7 - treating the date of the options' grant as the acquisition date of the stock and the date of option exercise and sale as the sale date. Following notification by respondent that the 2002 return was under examination, petitioner made several efforts to investigate the proper tax treatment of the two stock option transactions. In the course of his subsequent discussions with Internal Revenue Service personnel, petitioner was referred to IRS Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. 5(...continued) $56,949 and $51,469. We are not bound by stipulations of fact that appear contrary to the facts disclosed by the record, see Rule 91(e); Blohm v. Commissioner, 994 F.2d 1542, 1553 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-636, and accordingly find that petitioners reported $51,469 of long-term capital gain from the Fluor stock option transactions in 2002. Second, petitioner conceded at trial that the sales price for the same block of Fluor stock was incorrectly reported on the Schedule D as $19,025 when it should have been $40,859, which results in a gain of $19,093 rather than the reported loss of $2,740. (Respondent described the correct gain as $19,025, but the documentary evidence suggests the gain is $19,093.) When a gain of approximately $19,000 is substituted for the reported loss of $2,740, the net long-term gain arising from petitioners' reporting of the Fluor stock option transactions approximates the $73,374.72 in proceeds from "Nonqualified plans" reported on the Form W-2 issued by Fluor to petitioner. We expect the parties to address any remaining discrepancies in their Rule 155 computations.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