                                 T.C. Memo. 2017-141



                           UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                      KENAN TURAN, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 15323-15.                            Filed July 17, 2017.



      Kenan Turan, pro se.

      Michael R. Harrel, Doreen Marie Susi, and Rachael J. Zepeda, for

respondent.


               MEMORANDUM FINDING OF FACT AND OPINION


      NEGA, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $45,454 in

petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2013 and an accuracy-related penalty of

$9,091 pursuant to section 6662(a).1


      1
          All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                                                         (continued...)
                                        -2-

[*2] After concessions, the issues remaining for decision are: (1) whether the

calculation of petitioner’s capital gain and or loss on sales of Federal National

Mortgage Association (FNMA) stock requires the use of the first-in-first-out

(FIFO) method to determine petitioner’s per-share cost basis and (2) whether

petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).2

                               FINDINGS OF FACT

      Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of

facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the

time he filed his petition with this Court, petitioner resided in Arizona. During

2013 petitioner was primarily employed as a real estate agent, but he also worked

as a paid income tax return preparer and routinely traded on the stock market.

      Petitioner traded on the stock market through a personal brokerage account

with Scottrade, Inc. As is standard for electronic brokerage firms, Scottrade held

custody of petitioner’s stocks in street name and served as his trading agent.



      1
       (...continued)
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at
issue. All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
      2
        Petitioner concedes all amounts determined by respondent in the notice of
deficiency with the exception of the basis values used to calculate the amount
realized on petitioner’s sales of FNMA stock. Respondent concedes that
petitioner is entitled to a wash sale basis carryover from tax year 2012.
                                        -3-

[*3] Scottrade uses the FIFO method to determine the tax basis and calculate gains

or losses unless a client directs otherwise. Scottrade issues a monthly transaction

statement to its clients. This statement includes a conspicuous notification alerting

Scottrade’s clients to the firm’s default use of the FIFO method. The notification

informs those of Scottrade’s clients who wish to use a different method for

determining basis that they may do so by directing Scottrade to do so.

      During 2013 petitioner maintained a diverse portfolio of marketable stocks,

but nearly all his trading positions were short term. This short term strategy was

reflected in his frequent purchases of small blocks of stock, followed by a sale of

an identical amount later that day or that week. That March, however, petitioner

took a long-term investment position when he purchased approximately 100,000

shares of FNMA stock, a position he maintained throughout 2013.

      Petitioner’s FNMA stocks were identical but for the time and cost at which

he acquired them. Petitioner never requested that Scottrade determine his tax

bases in these shares by any means other than the default FIFO method.

      During 2013 petitioner made a total of 51 stock sales through his Scottrade

account; 16 of those sales were of FNMA stock. Scottrade regularly issued to

petitioner monthly account statements and Forms 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker

and Barter Exchange Transactions, for these sales. Scottrade similarly provided
                                           -4-

[*4] respondent with an accounting of petitioner’s transactions. When petitioner

prepared his Federal income tax return for 2013, however, he failed to report any

gains or losses from these sales and declined to include a Schedule D, Capital

Gains and Losses, with his return.

         Scottrade’s third-party reporting gave rise to the notice of deficiency in this

case, from which petitioner filed a timely petition with this Court. Petitioner

concedes all determinations in the notice of deficiency except the basis values

respondent used to determine petitioner’s gains or losses on his sales of FNMA

stock.

                                        OPINION

I.       Determining Petitioner’s Bases in FNMA Stock

         As relevant here, basis is the cost incurred by taxpayers when acquiring

property. Sec. 1012. When taxpayers sell shares of stock, they must compute

their tax gain or loss by finding the difference between their cost basis and amount

realized. Sec. 1001(a).

         As a general rule, when taxpayers hold multiple lots or shares of identical

stock, they must compute their gains or losses against the basis of those shares

actually sold, not the shares the taxpayer intended to sell. Davidson v.

Commissioner, 305 U.S. 44, 46 (1938). As this rule may prove onerous for high-
                                         -5-

[*5] volume or high-frequency traders, regulations have been promulgated to

provide relief. Under the regulations, by default, taxpayers owning blocks of

identical stock acquired on different dates or for different prices determine their

stock’s basis by using the FIFO method. Sec. 1.1012-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.

      If taxpayers can adequately identify the specific shares of stock they wish to

sell or transfer, the regulation permits taxpayers to opt out of the default regime

and use the basis correlated to those specifically identified shares. Id. When

securities are left in the custody of a broker, taxpayers wishing to avoid use of the

FIFO method must direct their broker accordingly, and adequately identify the

particular shares they wish to sell. Id. subparas.(2) and (3)(i).

      In such a situation a taxpayer will be considered to have adequately

identified shares if (a) the taxpayer at the time of the sale designates a particular

lot or lots to be sold and (b) the broker confirms the taxpayer’s instructions in a

writing within a reasonable time thereafter. Id. subpara. (3); see Concord

Instruments Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-248, 1994 Tax Ct. Memo

LEXIS 244, at *84-*89 (regulation is a safe harbor--illustrative, not exclusive--

and standing orders to a broker may suffice). Adequate identification, by

whatever means made, must be timely in relation to the sale: “no later than the

earlier of the settlement date or the time for settlement required by Rule 15c6-1
                                        -6-

[*6] under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 CFR 240.15c6-1 (or its

successor).” Sec. 1.1012-1(c)(8), Income Tax Regs.

      The Commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct, and taxpayers

bear the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a). To avoid the default FIFO

operation, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he adequately identified

the stocks he wished sold. See Rule 142(a); Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1027

(1989).

      Petitioner argues that respondent and Scottrade both erred in failing to use

the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method to determine the bases of his FNMA shares.

Petitioner testified that in mid-2013 he attempted to inform Scottrade of his desire

to use LIFO instead of FIFO, by way of their internet client portal, but was unable

to do so because of an error on Scottrade’s website. He stated that he phoned the

firm in an attempt to work around this error, but received no assistance. Petitioner

did not testify as to whether he ever again attempted to make this election for 2013

or otherwise contacted Scottrade during the seven months that followed his initial

attempt.

      Petitioner offered no documentation or other objective indicia to corroborate

his claim of a computer error or any misfeasance on the part of Scottrade.

Moreover, we find petitioner’s testimony lacks credibility, especially in the light
                                          -7-

[*7] of Scottrade’s declaration indicating the company has no record of being

contacted by or on behalf of petitioner, let alone with respect to directing the firm

to determine his FNMA bases in any specific manner.

      Petitioner has not suggested any applicable law or regulation that might

otherwise authorize his use of any method other than FIFO to determine the bases

of his shares at issue under the factual circumstances here presented.3

      We find that petitioner never instructed his broker to administer his account

using any method other than the regulatory default FIFO method, or otherwise

adequately identified the specific stock to be sold at the time of sale.

Respondent’s determinations are sustained.




      3
        A taxpayer may elect to use an averaged basis in computing gains and
losses on his sale of stock in regulated investment companies or acquired in
connection with a dividend reinvestment plan. Sec. 1.1012-1(e)(1)(i), Income Tax
Regs. A taxpayer hoping to avail himself of this regulation should provide the
custodian of his shares written direction of his intention to do so. Id. subpara.
(9)(i).
        At trial petitioner appeared to suggest, in the alternative, that he was entitled
to use this average basis method. Petitioner presented no evidence suggesting his
shares fall within the narrow categories contemplated by the regulation. And as
stated supra, the record before us is devoid of any credible evidence indicating
petitioner ever communicated to Scottrade his intention or desire to opt out of the
default FIFO treatment.
                                         -8-

[*8] II.     Section 6662(a) Penalty for Substantial Understatement of Tax

       A taxpayer is liable for the accuracy-related penalty as to any portion of an

underpayment attributable to, among other things, a substantial understatement of

income tax.4 Sec. 6662(a), (b)(2). A substantial understatement exists when the

amount of the understatement exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be

shown on the return for the taxable year or $5,000. Sec. 6662(d)(1). The

Commissioner bears the burden of production with respect to this penalty. Sec.

7491(c).

       Recognizing the concessions between the parties, we will order a

determination of the exact amount of petitioner’s understatement in a Rule 155

computation. If this computation indicates petitioner substantially understated his

income tax for 2013, then respondent has met his burden of production. See

Prince v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-247.




       4
        The accuracy-related penalty can also apply when the taxpayer’s
underpayment is attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.
Sec. 6662(b)(1). The notice of deficiency, however, asserted only a substantial
understatement of income tax as the reason for imposing the sec. 6662(a) penalty.
Respondent did not assert in his answer, nor advance at trial, any argument in
support of the determination that petitioner was liable for the accuracy-related
penalty on an alternative ground of negligence. Accordingly, we consider only the
issue raised in the notice of deficiency.
                                         -9-

[*9] Once the Commissioner meets his burden of production, the taxpayer must

come forward with persuasive evidence that the penalty is inappropriate because,

for example, he or she acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. Sec.

6664(c)(1); see Rule 142(a); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-449

(2001). The penalty will not apply to any portion of the underpayment where the

taxpayer establishes he or she acted with reasonable cause and in good faith with

respect to that portion. Sec. 6664(c)(1). The decision as to whether a taxpayer

acted with reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis,

examining all the pertinent facts and circumstances. See sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1),

Income Tax Regs. Generally, however, the most important factor is the extent of

the taxpayer’s effort to assess the proper tax liability. Hansen v. Commissioner,

471 F.3d 1021, 1029 (9th Cir. 2006), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2004-269.

      Petitioner did not challenge respondent’s penalty determination in his

petition or in any filing with the Court. At trial petitioner alleged that an error

embedded within Scottrade’s website impeded his ability to make a FIFO/LIFO

election. To the extent this may be construed as a reasonable cause defense we are

far from persuaded. Petitioner’s testimony as to this matter is not credible,

uncorroborated, and controverted by the record. Additionally, we note,

petitioner’s understatement arose from a failure to report a year’s worth of stock
                                         - 10 -

[*10] sales, not from a dispute as to the appropriate method for determining his tax

bases.

         Although Scottrade issued petitioner Form 1099-B for all of his stock sales,

petitioner did not report these amounts. Petitioner attributes his failure to his

belief that Scottrade erred in determining his bases and calculating his gains and

losses. Petitioner did not attempt to contact Scottrade to request corrections, nor

did he seek legal or professional advice or assistance in addressing these perceived

errors or in ascertaining how to proceed in reporting these sales on his tax return

for 2013. Rather he prepared his return, deciding to omit a Schedule D and

declining to report any of his 51 stock sales for 2013, a total inclusive of the 35

transactions he has since conceded in this action.

         When we consider his sophistication and--more concerning--his training

and employment as a paid preparer of income tax returns, we find his failure

characteristic of an unreasonably insufficient effort to ascertain his proper tax

liability. See Carter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-111.

         Under these circumstances, insofar as supported by the Rule 155

computation, we sustain respondent’s determination of the accuracy-related

penalty.
                                  - 11 -

[*11] To reflect the foregoing,

                                           Decision will be entered

                                  under Rule 155.
