- 4 - goods sold were computed; it is clear that there is no documentation in support of these amounts, nor was there any attempt by Mr. Poltonowicz to verify these items. At trial, petitioners and Mr. Poltonowicz were unable to explain the sources from which these items were derived. Discussion As a preliminary matter, we address Mrs. Haggart’s contention at trial that Mr. Haggart was an employee of Roman rather than a self-employed independent contractor. In this context, the issue is peculiar because petitioners took the position on their tax returns that Mr. Haggart was self-employed and both Mr. Haggart and respondent agree that he was self- employed. Additionally, Mrs. Haggart did not raise the issue in the petition filed with this Court. Indeed, in the petition she prayed that “Spouse seeks emancipation from taxpayer’s responsibility for self-employment taxes.” The position taken in the petition, therefore, assumes that there was a liability for self-employment taxes, and certainly respondent was entitled to assume this in preparing for trial. If we were to allow Mrs. Haggart to raise this issue at this late time, respondent would be unfairly prejudiced. See Toyota Town, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-40, affd. sub nom. Bob Wondries Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 268 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, wePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011