- 9 -
On brief, respondent argues that the facts of this case
demonstrate that the payments from third parties for dispatch
services were received by Mrs. Ruckman as income from a "separate
business" from that of Ruckman, Inc., and the payments are
therefore attributable to her and subject to the self-employment
tax imposed by section 1401. As legal authority for his
position, respondent cites Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S.
733 (1949), suggesting that the assignment of income doctrine is
at issue in this case. Respondent further cites Joseph Radtke,
S.C. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 143 (E.D. Wis. 1989), affd.
per curiam 895 F.2d 1196 (7th Cir. 1990), and Spicer Accounting,
Inc. v. United States, 918 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1990), for the
proposition that we should "determine the economic reality"
presented by the facts and circumstances of this case.
We do not believe that Radtke and Spicer provide a coherent
theory for sustaining the deficiency determined with respect to
self-employment taxes. Those cases involve the
recharacterization of S corporation dividends as wages subject to
employment taxes imposed by sections 3111 and 3301. The notice
of deficiency in the instant case does not seek to recharacterize
dividends from Ruckman, Inc., as wages of Mrs. Ruckman subject to
employment taxes, but instead proceeds on the quite different
theory that Mrs. Ruckman earned these amounts directly,
subjecting them to self-employment tax, and that petitioners'
efforts to attribute such income to their wholly owned
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