- 16 -
untenable, because that term applies to a condition that renders
a taxpayer’s beneficial ownership of stock subject to
termination. See Kadillak v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 184 (2006);
Montgomery v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 43 (2006); Spitz v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-168; Racine v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-162; Facq v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-111; Merlo
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-178; see also United States v.
Tuff, 469 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2006); Guzak v. United States, 75
Fed. Cl. 304, 311 (2007). Mr. Chou testified: “I exercised
because I could, the stock was vested and I just happened to not
sell.” There is neither logic nor authority supporting the
argument that consideration of tax consequences is a risk of
forfeiture within the meaning of section 83(a). There is no
evidence of any nontax reason for Mr. Chou not to sell the stock
that he acquired in 2000.
Petitioners raise a series of arguments that they are
entitled to a windfall as a result of the assessment, now abated,
for 2001. (They accuse respondent of “gamesmanship”, apparently
believing that the best defense is a strong offense.) We cannot
conclude that the abatement and concession should be rejected.
Respondent’s position, as set forth in detail in the
September 13, 2005, notices of determination quoted at length
above, was not unreasonable. Assuming that the 2001 tax
liability should have been abated earlier, however, and
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007