- 23 -
petitioners’ farm-related activities in the production by JJ & P
Farms, Inc., of agricultural commodities with respect to process-
ing hogs through that barn. Consequently, according to petition-
ers, no nexus existed between (1) the 1995 claimed rent for
petitioners’ 800-head capacity hog barn that petitioners received
pursuant to the modified oral rental arrangement and (2) the oral
employment arrangement under which petitioners were to, and did,
participate materially in the production by JJ & P Farms, Inc.,
of agricultural commodities by performing petitioners’ farm-
related activities with respect to, inter alia, processing hogs
through that barn.
We turn to petitioners’ contention that the 1995 claimed
rent for petitioners’ 800-head capacity hog barn represented fair
market rent. In support of that contention, petitioners rely on
the following testimony of Mr. Solvie in response to the follow-
ing question by petitioners’ counsel on direct examination of Mr.
Solvie:21
Q Okay. The rent that you [acting on behalf of
JJ & P Farms, Inc.] paid for the new hog barn, was it
above, below, or at fair market value for your area?
A About fair market value. Fair market value.
21In addition to relying on Mr. Solvie’s testimony to sup-
port their position that the 1995 claimed rent for petitioners’
800-head capacity hog barn represented fair market rent, peti-
tioners contend that respondent stipulated that that rent repre-
sented fair market rent. That contention is wrong. Respondent
did not stipulate that that rent represented fair market rent.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011