Tae M. & Young J. Kim - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          tion).  Neither party has requested a hearing, and we conclude              
          that a hearing is not necessary.  Rule 232(a)(2).  Based on the             
          submissions of the parties, we shall deny petitioners’ motion.              
                                     Background                                       
               The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the           
          following.2                                                                 
               During 2002, petitioner Young J. Kim (Ms. Kim) was employed            
          by Fannie Mae.  At a time not disclosed by the record before                
          January 17, 2002, Fannie Mae granted Ms. Kim certain options                
          (Fannie Mae options) to buy Fannie Mae stock under an employee              
          stock purchase plan (Fannie Mae ESPP).                                      
               Pursuant to the Fannie Mae ESPP, on four dates in January              
          2002, Ms. Kim exercised certain Fannie Mae options and acquired             
          certain shares of Fannie Mae stock.  In order to have the money             
          to pay the exercise price of the options exercised, on the dates            
          on which she exercised such options, Ms. Kim sold for certain               
          gross proceeds certain shares of Fannie Mae stock acquired as a             
          result of the exercise of such options.                                     
               Fannie Mae issued to Ms. Kim Form W-2, Wage and Tax State-             
          ment (Fannie Mae Form W-2), for her taxable year 2002.  That form           
          showed total wages, tips, and other compensation of $95,323.62.             

               2We incorporate herein by reference the Court’s Memorandum             
          Findings of Fact and Opinion in Kim v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.             
          2007-14 (Court’s Opinion), and set forth the portions of that               
          Opinion that are relevant to our disposition of petitioners’                
          motion.                                                                     





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

Last modified: November 10, 2007