- 18 -
Minnesota requires a principal to retain some measure of control
over the agent for a valid agency relationship to exist. See
Jurek v. Thompson, 241 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 1976). Petitioners
claim they retained no control over the processing of the corn
and the marketing and sale of the resulting corn products;
therefore, MCP was acting on its own account and not as
petitioners’ agent. According to petitioners’ analysis, unless
MCP was petitioners’ agent, petitioners’ limited involvement in
acquiring and delivering corn to satisfy their production
obligations is insufficient to constitute a trade or business
generating income subject to the self-employment tax.
We disagree with petitioners for several reasons. First,
whether MCP qualified as petitioners’ agent in processing,
marketing, and selling the corn petitioners acquired and
delivered to MCP in 1994 and 1995 is not essential to our
holding. Regardless of whether MCP acted as petitioners’ agent,
the record establishes that petitioners, by satisfying their
production obligations under the UMAs during 1994 and 1995,
regularly and continuously purchased and sold corn with the
intention of making a profit. Although petitioners may have
retired from daily farming in 1987, they did not cease to
function as dealers in corn following their retirement. In fact,
in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, and 1995, petitioners bought
additional units of equity participation and entered into
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011