Curtis and Mary Ettesvold - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
            case, this Court followed the analysis of the Court of                    
            Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the governing circuit, in                 
            McNamara v. Commissioner, 236 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2000),                   
            revg. and remanding Bot v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-                 
            256, Henner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-306, and                     
            McNamara v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-333, and held that              
            there was no nexus between the rental payments at issue and               
            the oral agreement between the taxpayers and their farm                   
            corporation under which the taxpayers were to materially                  
            participate in the corporation’s production of agricultural               
                 According to petitioners, the decision of this Court                 
            in Johnson v. Commissioner, supra, “dictates that Curtis                  
            and Mary Ettesvold do not owe the additional self-employment              
            taxes that were assessed against them by the Internal                     
            Revenue Service.”  Accordingly, they contend that they are                
            to be treated as the “prevailing party”, pursuant to section              
            7430(c)(4)(E), on the ground their tax liability is “less                 
            than the ‘qualified offer’ that they offered to the Internal              
            Revenue Service.”  Petitioners further assert that they had               
            exhausted their administrative remedies available within                  
            the Internal Revenue Service, that they had not unreasonably              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011