- 26 -
contend, however, that petitioner spent much of his time out in
the community, meeting people and volunteering his services.
They assert that, during petitioners’ early years in South
Dakota, Mrs. Haeder was indispensable to petitioner’s law
practice because she stayed at home to answer the telephone,
greet visitors, type and file legal documents, and keep
petitioner’s records.
Respondent contends that Mrs. Haeder was not petitioner’s
employee during the years in issue. Respondent asserts that the
activities performed by Mrs. Haeder were duties normally
performed by family members living in the same home, and they do
not constitute the duties of an employee.
Our review of the record in this case confirms that
petitioners have not shown that Mrs. Haeder provided services as
petitioner’s employee during the years in issue. Mrs. Haeder did
not testify as to the extent or nature of any services she
purportedly rendered in connection with petitioner’s law
practice. Petitioner’s testimony relating to Mrs. Haeder’s
purported services was vague, generalized, and conclusory. The
record contains no specific or convincing evidence regarding
clerical or secretarial services Mrs. Haeder actually performed
in connection with petitioner’s law practice.
In their briefs, petitioners contend that during the audit
petitioner showed the IRS auditor numerous documents that Mrs.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011