- 10 -
supra at 447. Petitioner did not have a contract for employment
with Sams, Inc., which evidences lack of control by Sams, Inc.
See Johnson v. Commissioner, supra at 891. Sams, Inc. had no
employees in 1996. In addition, many of the checks deposited
into the account (which is in petitioner’s name) reflect
petitioner individually as the payee, and not Sams, Inc.
Furthermore, petitioner did not maintain records of the expenses
claimed on her individual return separately from the expenses
claimed on the return of Sams, Inc.
We conclude that petitioner was not an employee of Sams,
Inc., and that petitioner, not Sams, Inc., earned the gross
receipts at issue. We also conclude that petitioner was self-
employed. Secs. 1401 and 1402. Therefore, the gross receipts
reported on the return of Sams, Inc. are properly allocated to
petitioner under the assignment of income doctrine.
Based on the above holding, we need not and do not apply
section 482 to these facts.
2. Unreported Income and Bank Deposits
During the examination of petitioner’s individual return,
respondent’s agent requested petitioner’s books and records,
including a sales journal, general ledger, and a general journal,
none of which petitioner produced. Petitioner produced to
respondent (and to the Court) bank statements reflecting deposits
to and withdrawals from the account from January 1 through
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