Teddy R. and Cheryl D. McGinty, Jr. - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         

          paid for work in excess of the required 15 hours per week.  The             
          calculation for the room was for 10 hours per week for 15 weeks             
          at a value of $15 per hour, for a total of $2,250.00 of                     
          nonemployee compensation.  The calculation for the board was for            
          5 hours per week for 15 weeks at a value of $15 per hour, for a             
          total of $1,125.00 of nonemployee compensation.  The additional             
          $539.15 represents funds paid by Mr. Dixon to petitioner in 1999            
          for work performed in excess of the required 15 hours per week.             
               After reviewing the Form 1099 and the calculation worksheet,           
          petitioner concedes that $539.15 of the reported nonemployee                
          compensation is includable in income.  However, petitioner argues           
          that $3,375.00 of reported nonemployee compensation is excludable           
          pursuant to section 119.  Further, petitioner argues that she was           
          an employee of Mr. Dixon’s, and, therefore, any amount that may             
          be taxable is not subject to self-employment tax.                           
               Respondent argues that petitioner performed duties for Mr.             
          Dixon as an independent contractor and that the fair market value           
          of the services received is income subject to self-employment               
          tax.  Further, respondent argues that petitioner fails to qualify           
          for income exclusion provided by section 119.                               
               We decide the deficiency issues in this case on the basis of           
          the record without regard to the burden of proof.  Accordingly,             
          we need not decide whether the general rule of section 7491(a)(1)           
          is applicable in this case.  See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011