- 17 -
* * * [a] Court’s reluctance to credit every word of
his negative wails. [Citations omitted.]
We also note that respondent apportioned one-half of the
newspaper income to each petitioner to reflect the community
property laws of Texas and that petitioners state no objection to
this apportionment. Nor have petitioners ever objected to
respondent’s determination that the newspaper income attributable
to Mr. Burnett was self-employment income for which he was liable
for self-employment tax.9 We sustain that determination as
well.10
III. Sec. 6651 – Failure To File
Respondent alleged in answer (and argues herein) that
petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)
9 Mr. Burnett was actually liable for self-employment tax on
all of the newspaper income. Although one-half of an
individual’s self-employment income may be attributed to his or
her spouse under community property law, sec. 1402(a)(5) requires
that any self-employment tax payable on that income be computed
by treating all of the income as that of the husband “unless the
wife exercises substantially all of the management and control of
* * * [the underlying] trade or business”, in which case all of
the income is treated as that of the wife. See Charlton v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 333, 337 (2000). Because respondent has
not made any claim to more self-employment tax than determined in
the notices of deficiency, we do not redetermine the greater
amount. Sec. 6214(a).
10 We also reject petitioners’ allegation that they are
entitled to personal exemptions, deductions, and business-related
expense deductions not reflected in the notices of deficiency.
Rule 142(a)(1); see also Ryback v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566
(1988) (issue not argued on brief, as was the case here with
respect to petitioners and their claim to these items, is
considered conceded).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011