- 27 -
Haeder had worked on for petitioner.9 Petitioners, however,
presented none of those documents at trial. In fact, petitioner
did not offer into evidence any documentation of the work Mrs.
Haeder purportedly performed or of the time she purportedly spent
performing services for his law practice during the years in
issue. The record is devoid of credible evidence establishing
that Mrs. Haeder performed any services other than those
reasonably expected of a family member. We are not required to
accept petitioner’s self-serving, uncorroborated testimony that
Mrs. Haeder performed substantial and continuing clerical and
secretarial services for him during the years in issue. See Bose
Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. at 512; Day v.
Commissioner, 975 F.2d at 538; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440
F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo.
1969-159; Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992).
Other evidence in the record supports respondent’s position
that Mrs. Haeder did not serve as petitioner’s employee during
the years in issue. For example, except for 1993, petitioner did
not issue Mrs. Haeder a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.
Furthermore, petitioner did not pay Mrs. Haeder “wages” on a
9This Court does not consider statements in briefs as proof.
See Rule 143(b); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 214
n.7 (1992); Viehweg v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1248, 1255 (1988);
Evans v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 704, 709 (1967), affd. 413 F.2d
1047 (9th Cir. 1969).
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011