- 7 -
subject to seasonal variations, and Ms. Poyda was engaged in
other time-consuming activities--employment with the Medford Area
Chamber of Commerce, helping with petitioners’ other business
activities, and her role in raising their four children. Both of
these facts support the conclusion that Ms. Poyda did not adhere
to the alleged contract by working 35 hours each week.
Third, while Ms. Poyda did perform some services in
connection with the tree farm, these services were performed more
in the nature of a co-owner than an employee. Petitioners
stipulated the fact that they owned and operated the tree farm
and that they jointly owned the property on which the farm was
located. This signifies joint responsibility for the farm,
rather than the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Furthermore, Ms. Poyda also assisted her husband with similar
activities in their other business endeavors without receiving
compensation therefor. This indicates she was not treated as an
employee in any of these contexts.
We find that the expenses were not ordinary and necessary
expenses incurred in connection with the tree farm. See Welch v.
Helvering, supra. There is nothing in the record to indicate any
connection between the medical benefits Ms. Poyda received and
her assistance on the farm, or even her assistance with
petitioners’ other endeavors, regardless of whether that
assistance was as an employee or as a co-owner. We find the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011