- 10 -
decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, where an appeal of this case would lie. In Bot v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 138 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 595 (8th Cir.
2003), this Court held, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that
value-added payments received by members of MCP were subject to
self-employment tax, and that the self-employment income of a
member of MCP includes income that the member derives from the
business conducted by MCP as an agent of the member.
It has been stipulated that before the period in dispute Mr.
Fultz purchased shares of stock in MCP and “units of equity
participation”. Mr. Fultz entered into UMAs with MCP in which he
represented he was a producer or owner of the corn he would
deliver under the MCP program. Corn was delivered to MCP to meet
his obligation on his accounts to MCP, and he received value-
added payments from MCP. All these factors were present in Bot.
Nevertheless, petitioners maintain the present case should be
distinguished from Bot because they entered into a lease
agreement with Fultz Farms under which they purportedly assigned
to Fultz Farms all their responsibilities and duties as holders
of the units and all the value-added payments due from MCP.
Petitioners also assert that although Mr. Fultz received the
checks representing the value-added payments from MCP,
petitioners immediately wrote a check to Fultz Farms for the full
amount of each check issued to Mr. Fultz by MCP. Petitioners
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011