- 8 -
2. Income From MetLife
Petitioner does not dispute that he received $6,005 from
MetLife. Furthermore, he concedes the $2,160 he received during
the training period is self-employment income. With respect to
the remaining $3,845, however, he contends this amount does not
represent earnings from the training period. Petitioner believes
the $3,845 was reimbursement for the cost of establishing a
business office and, therefore, is excludable from gross income.
In the alternative, petitioner appears to contend that even if
the $3,845 is includable in gross income, it is wage income
rather than self-employment income because he received payment
after he became an employee.
Under some circumstances, an employee’s gross income does
not include amounts received from his employer for reimbursement
of business expenses. See, e.g., Biehl v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
467, 473-474 (2002), affd. 351 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003); Anaheim
Paper Mill Supplies, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-86;
sec. 1.162-17(b) and (c), Income Tax Regs. In this case,
however, petitioner has failed to establish that the $3,845 was
reimbursement for business expenses. To the contrary, MetLife’s
business records indicate the $3,845 was income that petitioner
earned during the training period. To refute these documents,
petitioner offers only his uncorroborated testimony that one or
more MetLife employees told him the $3,845 was for office startup
expenses. His testimony alone, however, does not overcome the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011