During those happy times when the market seems to be headed ever upwards (oh, the '90s were so much fun!), it almost seems like investors are trading under the influence. In a case issued by the Tax Court today, we find an actual instance of trading while tippled:
On each day that Paine Webber was open for business, petitioner visited its office and invested approximately $500,000 to $1 million in speculative securities. From the time that petitioner arrived at Paine Webber’s office, usually 6 to 6:30 a.m., he started drinking alcoholic beverages, supplied by Paine Webber, until he was high and happy but not stumbling drunk. He authorized each of his trades, and he was informed and knowledgeable as to all of his trades. Some of the trades resulted in gains, and some of them resulted in losses.
During 1980, petitioner had exhausted most of his funds, and he ceased his regular involvement with Paine Webber.
We thought they only did this in Las Vegas. Maybe that's what they mean by "full service" brokerage.
In or about 1985, petitioner and his wife sued Paine Webber, Osborne, and others (collectively, the defendants) in a U.S. District Court, alleging that the defendants were liable for securities fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty in the handling of petitioner’s accounts. The court dismissed the lawsuit as time barred by the applicable period of limitations and for failure to plead properly as to fraud. That dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
All that free liquor, and no gratitude whatever.
On his 1986 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed an $800,000 deduction for a casualty or theft loss. On his 1997, 1998, and 1999 Federal income tax returns, petitioner claimed that he was entitled to deduct with respect to that loss NOL (net operating loss) carryovers of $726,572, $726,572, and $703,308, respectively.
How's that again? He claimed an 1986 loss of $800,000, generating $700,000+ losses each year for 1997, 1998, and 1999? Maybe the tax preparer lingered at Paine Webber before working on these returns.
Petitioner argues in his brief that he is entitled to deduct the NOL carryovers at issue. According to petitioner, those carryovers are attributable to a theft that petitioner suffered in that “in essence Paine Webber stole his money from him by supplying him with alcoholic beverages and allowed him to make unwise investments that benefitted them directly” in the form of higher commissions.
Even in the investment world, candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.
Tax Court Judge Laro said the taxpayer failed to establish that there even was a net operating loss.
Even if there were a loss, the tax law doesn't allow you to use NOL deductions at your convenience. You are required to carry them back to years before the NOL incurred unless you make an election to carry the losses forward on your original timely return for the loss year. In 1986, the carryback period was three years (it's two years now). You have to claim the refund for the prior years within three years of the due date for the loss year return. The return for 1986, the loss year, was due April 15, 1987, so the refund claim was due April 15, 1990.
The only way the taxpayer could have used a 1986 loss eleven years later would be if would not have been offset by income in 1983-1985 or 1987-1996. Even then, you can only use a loss once. The taxpayer failed to introduce evidence in to the court to support that any NOLs would have survived until 1997.
The result? A loss by the taxpayer on all issues, $576,661 in additional taxes, and $115,372.20 in penalties.
The moral? Don't drink and day-trade. Oh, and don't sleep on those NOL carrybacks, either.
Cite: Michael E. Yoakum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-191
After August 26, use this link.
The items included in the Tax Update Blog are informational only and are not meant as tax advice. Consult with your tax advisor to determine how any item applies to your situation.
Joe Kristan writes the Tax Update items, and any opinions expressed or implied are not necessarily shared by anyone else at Roth & Company, P.C. Address questions or comments on Tax Updates to