- 15 -
dated approximately 1 month before the trial of this case.
Although respondent did not pose a hearsay objection to the
statement, we nonetheless accord greater weight to the
contemporaneous actions of Bennett Logging, in which a
distinction was maintained in the preparation of Forms 1099 as
between payments to Ruckman, Inc., for hauling services, and
payments to Mrs. Ruckman personally for dispatch services.10
Happy Trucking did issue a Form 1099 to Ruckman, Inc., rather
than Mrs. Ruckman, for dispatching services in 1991, although the
Happy Trucking payments were not reported by either Ruckman,
Inc., or petitioners. To the extent that dispatch payments were
reported in 1991, they were reported by petitioners on Schedule C
of their joint return, as the self-employment income of Mrs.
Ruckman. On balance, we conclude that the manner in which the
service recipients generally paid and, for tax purposes,
accounted for the payments for dispatch services negates the
proposition that they recognized Ruckman, Inc.'s controlling
position with respect to earning income from the dispatch
services.
Petitioners argue that they always considered themselves to
be conducting all business activities, including the provision of
dispatch services to third parties, only through Ruckman, Inc.,
10We note also that Mr. Bennett's statement offers no
explanation to account for the fact that Bennett Logging's checks
for dispatch services were made out to Mrs. Ruckman personally.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011