- 28 -
regular or normal basis (such as weekly, biweekly, or monthly),
nor did he pay those wages directly to her. For 1990, 1992, and
1993, petitioner transferred funds directly into Mrs. Haeder’s
IRA account at yearend. For 1991, petitioner wrote the check
payable to himself, Mrs. Haeder endorsed it, and Mrs. Haeder
deposited it into her IRA account.
Petitioner determined Mrs. Haeder’s purported salary on the
basis of the maximum IRA deduction. The record in this case
suggests that, for the years in issue, petitioner claimed the
purported employer-employee relationship between himself and Mrs.
Haeder in an attempt to enable petitioners to deduct personal
medical and dental expenses as business expenses and
contributions to the IRA account in Mrs. Haeder’s name.
In their briefs, petitioners contend that one of
respondent’s agents audited petitioners’ 1988 return and
permitted them to deduct similar salary and medical plan expenses
claimed on the Schedule C for that year. The record contains no
evidence of a prior year’s audit. See supra note 9. Even if
such proof had been offered, it would have been irrelevant
inasmuch as each tax year stands on its own and must be
considered separately. See United States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394
U.S. 678, 684 (1969). It is well established that the
Commissioner is not bound in any given year to allow a deduction
permitted in a previous year. See Lerch v. Commissioner, 877
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011