Karl Meyer and Vickie Meyer - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal             
          income tax for the taxable year 1997 in the amount of $3,612.               
               After a concession by respondent,2 the sole issue for                  
          decision is whether petitioners engaged in an Amway activity for            
          profit within the meaning of section 183.                                   
          Background3                                                                 
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.                                                                      
               Petitioners are husband and wife and have been married since           
          1992.  They resided in Houston, Texas, at the time that their               
          petition was filed with the Court.                                          
               A.  Petitioner Husband                                                 
               Petitioner husband (Mr. Meyer) is, by profession, a salesman           
          of medical equipment and has been employed by Xomed, Inc. (Xomed)           
          for approximately 15 years.  Xomed specializes in the production            
          of medical equipment for use by health care providers who                   
          practice in the ear, nose, and throat area.  As a salesman for              
          Xomed, Mr. Meyer typically contacts doctors and nurses within an            


          2 At trial, respondent conceded that petitioners are                        
          entitled to the Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, deduction for              
          unreimbursed employee business expenses (incurred by petitioner             
          Karl Meyer in the course of his employment as a salesman for                
          Xomed, Inc.) as claimed by petitioners on their return for the              
          year in issue.                                                              
          3 At trial, we deferred ruling on respondent’s relevancy                    
          objection to petitioners’ Exhibit 23-P, a collection of business            
          articles.  We now overrule that objection and admit the exhibit             
          into evidence.                                                              




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