- 5 -
each particular case. See Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 861
(2d Cir. 1992).
Based on the record, we conclude that petitioner was self-
employed in 1994 and was not an employee of Clairmont. It
appears that petitioner, a carpenter, agreed to build a room for
Clairmont and was to be paid on the basis of the amount of time
he spent in building that room. On a weekly basis, petitioner
would submit invoices showing the number of hours he had worked,
and Clairmont would pay the bill. Clairmont did not deduct
Federal or State income taxes or Social Security taxes.
Petitioner received no employee benefits from Clairmont. At the
conclusion of the task for which petitioner was hired, petitioner
no longer worked for Clairmont. During the time petitioner
worked for Clairmont, he was free to accept other jobs, even
though the Clairmont job was time consuming. Based upon this
record, we conclude that petitioner was self-employed in 1994.
Therefore, petitioner is liable for self-employment tax, which
will be recomputed under Rule 155.2
3. Addition to Tax for Delinquency Petitioner did not file
a 1994 Federal income tax return. His only reason for not filing
the return was his own version of why he is not subject to the
Internal Revenue Code. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to
2 In the notice of deficiency respondent allowed petitioner
a deduction of one-half of the calculated self-employment tax.
This amount will also have to be adjusted under Rule 155 in view
of the modification of the amount of self-employment income
petitioner received.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011