- 50 -- 50 -
petitioners' argument with respect to that issue in her answering
brief. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent has conceded the
self-employment tax issue relating to that unreported income.34
See Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).
Petitioners do not dispute, and we therefore assume that
they concede, that if we were to sustain respondent's determina-
tions of petitioners' unreported income for 1989 and 1990 result-
ing from the miscellaneous deposits at issue, respondent's deter-
minations imposing self-employment tax for those years on that
unreported income would be correct. In light of that concession
and our findings that petitioners have unreported income result-
ing from the miscellaneous deposits at issue for the years 1989
and 1990 in the amounts of $83,364 and $41,583.71, respectively,
we sustain respondent's determinations that such income consti-
tutes self-employment income that is subject to self-employment
tax.35
34 Even assuming arguendo that respondent had not conceded that
issue, we agree with petitioners that their unreported income for
1989 and 1990 resulting from the deposits of K & H's and Ms.
Velilla's funds is not gross income derived by petitioner from a
trade or business, see generally Mannette v. Commissioner, 69
T.C. 990, 992-993 (1978); Hankins v. United States, 403 F. Supp.
257, 259 (N.D. Miss. 1975), affd. without published opinion 531
F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1976), and that, consequently, it does not
constitute self-employment income for either of the years at
issue that is subject to self-employment tax.
35 Petitioners do not dispute, and we assume that they also
concede, the imposition of the self-employment tax for 1989
relating to their unreported income for that year in the amount
of $2,500 from the sale of plans.
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011