- 35 -
respective uses of certain Burien Nissan automobiles during the
years at issue.30 Before turning to each of those contentions,
we shall summarize the pertinent law.
In general, gross income includes compensation for services.
Sec. 61(a)(1). When services are paid for in property or in
exchange for other services, the fair market value of such
property or other services must be included in income as compen-
30In petitioners’ answering brief, petitioners contend that
respondent takes a new position on brief with respect to both
petitioners’ respective uses of certain Burien Nissan automobiles
during the years at issue and the value of such uses (respon-
dent’s position on brief). With respect to respondent’s position
on brief regarding petitioners’ respective uses of certain Burien
Nissan automobiles during the years at issue, petitioners con-
tend: “In its Brief, respondent now takes the completely new
position that none of the use of the vehicles used by the peti-
tioners was business related.” We disagree. Respondent’s
position on brief regarding petitioners’ respective uses of
certain Burien Nissan automobiles during the years at issue is
the same as respondent’s position in the notice, i.e.,
(1) petitioners did not provide adequate records or other docu-
mentation to substantiate any business use of those automobiles
during those years; and (2) petitioners did not show that Ms.
Whitehead’s use of certain Burien Nissan automobiles during the
years at issue constituted compensation to her by Burien Nissan
for certain services that she performed during those years. With
respect to respondent’s position on brief regarding the value of
petitioners’ respective uses of certain Burien Nissan automobiles
during the years at issue, petitioners contend: “Respondent then
proceeds to use some assumptions to compute what it feels should
be taxable income to the petitioners.” Respondent’s position on
brief regarding the value of petitioners’ respective uses of
certain Burien Nissan automobiles during the years at issue is
the same as respondent’s position in the notice, i.e., the
aggregate value of petitioners’ respective uses of those automo-
biles during each year at issue was $15,000. See supra note 18.
On the record before us, we find that respondent’s position on
brief does not differ from respondent’s determinations in the
notice or respondent’s position at trial. We find on that record
that respondent’s position on brief is not a new position.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011