Frank M. Settimo and Sallyn M. Settimo - Page 4

                                         -4-                                          
          service with a check drawn on the bank account of PWC or AGC.               
          For the subject years, PWC and AGC claimed deductions of $1,288             
          and $4,800, respectively, for the daycare expense of petitioners’           
          children.                                                                   
                                       OPINION                                        
               We decide the single issue mentioned above.  In that we find           
          that the facts underlying our decision of that issue are not in             
          dispute, we decide that issue without regard to which party bears           
          the burden of proof.  The parties dispute two other issues in               
          addition to the one that we decide.  The first other issue                  
          concerns the amount of wages that petitioner failed to report for           
          2001 and 2002.  The second other issue concerns whether all of              
          the S corporations’ workers are their employees.  We do not                 
          decide either of those two other issues in that our decision of             
          those issues is unnecessary to our redetermination of                       
          petitioners’ Federal income tax deficiencies for the subject                
          years.  As to the first other issue, petitioner is the sole                 
          shareholder of the S corporations, and any amount of wages that             
          he failed to report on his 2001 and 2002 Federal income tax                 
          returns will be offset entirely by the corresponding increase in            
          the deduction that passes through to him from the S corporations.           
          See Griffin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-246.  As to the                
          second other issue, that issue also does not affect our                     
          redetermination of petitioners’ deficiencies.                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011