|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
97 and 98 had 2 different sets of regs regarding trader status. 98 was more
clearly defined. You might check the Fortune article mentioned earlier. One of
the outfits specializing in this stuff is, oddly enough, Green & Co.
In a message dated 3/30/99 6:15:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
greene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I don't want a memo. I'm a lawyer - somewhat experienced in tax matters (
> although not
> in this precise area) - very experienced in construing federal law - and
all
> I asked
> you to do was type a few lines - i.e., the code section you're apparently
> relying on -
> 475(f) - which I couldn't find on line - so I could read it. I assume it's
> not all
> that long - most code subsections aren't. I'll give my accountant a call
> tomorrow -
> and ask him to fax me a copy - but I suspect from what I'm reading that it
> won't
> support the contentions that have been made here.
>
> P.S. For the benefit of others on this list - section 475 of the code
deals
> in
> general with *dealers* in securities. I tend to doubt that it would have
> much to do
> one way or the other with traders - but I'll reserve judgment until I read
> it.
>
> P.P.S. Don't mean to sound combative - but - when it comes to legal issues
-
> and
> that's what you're talking about here - I'm an "only the facts m'am" kind
of
> guy.
|