- 18 -
Supporting the contrary conclusion is his 2000 return, which
contains no Schedule C for any trade or business. Finally, the
Schedule D submitted by petitioner, which documents the
securities sales giving rise to his claimed $55,778.28 loss,
demonstrates to our satisfaction that petitioner did not employ
mark-to-market accounting with respect to his securities. No
securities were marked to market as of yearend 2000.
In sum, petitioner's contention that he was entitled to
recognize a $55,778.28 loss in 2000 on account of his being a
"day trader" is groundless. Aside from his apparent reliance on
section 475(f), petitioner's remaining argument against the
application of the section 1211(b) limitation on his claimed
losses is that the restriction is unfair or inappropriate for
taxpayers in his circumstances and/or that the recognition of
capital losses should not be limited because the recognition of
capital gains is not. These arguments merit no discussion; the
applicability of section 1211(b) to taxpayers in petitioner's
circumstances is well established. See, e.g., Marrin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-24, affd. 147 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.
1998); see also Acharya v. Commissioner, 225 Fed. Appx. 391 (7th
Cir. 2007); Jamie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-22.
3. Limitations Period Claims
Petitioner also asserted in his pretrial memorandum that the
periods for assessment and/or collection have expired with
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007