- 17 -
business. Sec. 475(f)(1)(A). A taxpayer must elect the
provision, however, no later than the due date (without regard to
extensions) for the return for the year immediately preceding the
election year. Rev. Proc. 99-17, sec. 5.03, 1999-1 C.B. 503,
504; Lehrer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-167; see also Knish
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-268. Petitioner admits that he
has made no such election at any time. Even if we were to treat
petitioner's averments in this proceeding as an attempt to elect
section 475(f) notwithstanding the requirements of Rev. Proc. 99-
17, supra, such an election, coming almost 5 years after the
close of the year at issue, would give petitioner an
impermissible benefit of hindsight. Compare Vines v.
Commissioner, 126 T.C. 279 (2006)(3-month-late section 475(f)
election permitted under section 301.9100-3, Proced. & Admin.
Regs., where taxpayer made no securities trades between
election's due date and its actual filing), with Knish v.
Commissioner, supra (6-month-late section 475(f) election made on
Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, was
ineffective); Lehrer v. Commissioner, supra (34-month-late
section 475(f) election made on amended Tax Court petition was
ineffective).
In addition to the absence of an election, petitioner
presented no evidence beyond his uncorroborated testimony that he
was engaged in a trade or business of trading securities.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007