Ralph E. Frahm & Erika C. Frahm - Page 29




                                       - 29 -                                         
          162(a) certain amounts35 in excess of the amounts conceded by               
          respondent for “Employee benefit programs” that petitioners                 
          claimed in the 2000 Schedule F, the 2001 Schedule F, and the 2002           
          Schedule F, respectively.36                                                 
               We have considered all of the parties’ contentions and                 
          arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be             
          without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.37                                   
               To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of respondent,            

                                             Decision will be entered under           
                                        Rule 155.                                     







               35See supra note 33.                                                   
               36Cf. Albers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-144.  Unlike             
          the instant case, in Albers, the fully stipulated record did not            
          establish that Darwin J. Albers (Mr. Albers), as the employer of            
          Peggy L. Albers (Ms. Albers), paid, directly or indirectly, to              
          Ms. Albers pursuant to the AgriPlan/AgriBiz medical reimbursement           
          plan involved in that case the medical expenses at issue there in           
          order to reimburse her for expenses incurred or paid for the                
          medical care of herself, her spouse Mr. Albers, and/or her                  
          dependent children.  Nor did the fully stipulated record in that            
          case establish why the payment by the taxpayers of the claimed              
          medical expenses qualified those expenses as ordinary and neces-            
          sary expenses paid or incurred by Mr. Albers in carrying on his             
          farming business.                                                           
               37In light of our findings and holdings herein, we reject              
          respondent’s argument on brief and determinations in the notice             
          that the insurance premiums at issue are subject to sec. 162(l).            






Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29

Last modified: March 27, 2008