Tag Archive for TC Memo 2011-234

IRS Treatment of ‘Traders’ and ‘Investors’

While many individual taxpayers claim to be traders in securities as compared to investors, in Henricus C. van der Lee, et ux. v. Commissioner TC Memo 2011-234 we learn in my humble opinion that the facts and circumstances of each and every specific taxpayer’s operation must be reviewed to make a proper determination in these regards. The bottom line is though as best I can tell if you want to be considered a ‘trader of securities’ you must at the very least be able to:

1. show that your activity is for the purposes of profiting from market fluctuation rather than appreciation in underlying investment securities

2. have frequent and regular transactions and

3. elect to use the mark-to-market method of accounting under §475(f).

In Henricus the taxpayer tried to avoid the capital loss treatment of stock transactions due to the $3,000 ceiling on capital losses under §1211(b) as investors in securities cannot treat their losses on the sale of securities in any other way. As an aside ‘Dealers’ in securities are exempt from these rules due to the nature of their business as ‘Securities’ are treated like inventory. ‘Traders’ or those who buy and sell stock on a regular basis to profit from the short-term market fluctuations, are subject to the $3,000 capital loss limit unless they elect to use the mark-to-market method of accounting under §475(f).

Regardless of whether the mark-to-market election is made, traders are allowed to deduct their investment expenses as business expenses on Schedule C under §212. However the ‘trader’ has the burden of proof that these expenditures are ordinary and necessary in the production or collection of income.

In the case of Mr. Van Der Lee the main area of dispute was his trading activity. The IRS reclassified his loss on stock trades as capital losses and disallowed the claimed business expenses because the filed tax return did not have a mark-to-market election under §475(f) attached. The Tax Court considered Mr. Van Der Lee’s intent, nature of derived income, as well as frequency, extent and regularity of the securities transactions. In 2002 148 trades were processed. Of these 35 were sales of shares acquired before 2002. Also not a single security was bought and sold on the same day, a purported norm of the ‘trading’ community. As such it was determined that the potential for profit in these sales was based on the general expectation of market appreciation rather than market fluctuation.

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS that Mr. van der Lee was not a trader, but rather an investor in securities in 2002. The loss of $1,388,327 reclassified by the Service as a capital loss was appropriate and as such only $3,000 per year is available to offset ordinary income under §1211(b).

To add insult to injury the legal, travel and meal expenses were not substantiated sufficiently with no specific business purpose stated and as such were disallowed. Additionally the home office expenses claimed were disallowed under §280A because investing in securities is not a trade or business. The net result of the Court’s findings was a complete dis-allowance of all expenses.