- 32 -
to the regulations states: “What are unusual and compelling
circumstances must be decided on a case-by-case basis in light of
all applicable facts and circumstances.” T.D. 8742, 1998-1 C.B.
at 390. We briefly recount the facts of the instant case.
Petitioner suffered a $25 million loss when his trading accounts
were liquidated on April 14, 2000, 3 days before the date
prescribed in Rev. Proc. 99-17, supra, for timely filing a
section 475(f) election. Mr. Pearce, petitioner’s tax adviser
who had full knowledge of petitioner’s trading activities and
losses and over 30 years of experience as an accountant, was
unaware of the section 475(f) election for securities traders.
Mr. Sellers, another accountant, was also unaware of the
availability of the section 475(f) election. As soon as
petitioner learned of the existence of the section 475(f)
election, he promptly employed Caplin & Drysdale to make the
section 475(f) election and file a request for section 9100
relief. Petitioner conducted no further trading activities
between the date he should have filed the election and the date
he actually filed the election. We find the combination of
circumstances in the instant case both unusual and compelling and
conclude that the interests of the Government should not be
presumed to be prejudiced even if the parenthetical phrase of
section 301.9100-3(c)(2)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs., did apply.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011