- 20 -
We also find Haeder v. Commissioner, supra, which respondent
cited, distinguishable. In Haeder, the Court found no employer-
employee relationship existed between two spouses, where one
spouse had a legal practice at home and the other spouse assisted
with secretarial, clerical, bookkeeping, and cleaning services.
Haeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-7. In Haeder, the
taxpayer-attorney admitted that the law practice had few clients
during the years at issue and required little assistance.
Moreover, only the taxpayer-attorney testified, and the Court
found that testimony vague, generalized, and conclusory. Nor did
the taxpayers document the spouse’s purported work activities or
the time spent working. Id.
Our case is therefore distinguishable from Haeder. While
the record in Haeder was “devoid” of credible evidence that an
employer-employee relationship existed, petitioners submitted
credible evidence and testimony concerning the nature of Mr.
Speltz’s activities and Mrs. Speltz’s direction of those
activities.
Finally, we have applied close scrutiny to the facts and
find that the daycare payments were made on account of the
employer-employee relationship and not on account of the family
relationship. See Denman v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 439 (1967);
Haeder v. Commissioner, supra; Shelley v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-432; Martens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-42. Mr.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011