Terry F. and Carol J. Zdun - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         

          1994.  We hold they are.2                                                   
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits are                      
          incorporated into our findings by this reference.  At the time              
          the petition in this case was filed, petitioners were married and           
          resided in Tiller, Oregon.                                                  
          The Dentistry Activity                                                      
               Petitioner has been licenced to practice dentistry since               
          1967, and is licensed to practice in California, Michigan, and              
          Oregon.  In addition to a consulting office in his home,                    
          petitioner maintains dental offices in Grants Pass and Medford,             
          Oregon.  Mrs. Zdun, who is a qualified dental assistant, assists            
          petitioner when he sees patients at their home office.                      
          Throughout the years at issue, petitioner devoted 3 days a week             
          to his dental practice.                                                     
               Petitioner practices what he calls holistic dentistry.                 
          According to petitioner, an organic apple is a special fruit rich           
          in vitamins, antioxidants, and bioflavonoids that contribute to             
          the health of gums and oral tissues.  Thus, he counsels his                 

               2  At the end of trial, respondent moved orally to increase            
          the amount of the deficiency for each year if the Court found               
          that petitioner was self-employed.  The Court denied this motion.           
          We hold, however, that to the extent the amount of each                     
          deficiency is not increased, petitioners are liable for self-               
          employment tax on petitioner's self-employment income.  See secs.           
          1401 and 1402.                                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011