Paul M. and Wanda E. Harmon - Page 10
- 9 -
2001, satisfying section 469(c)(7)(B)(i). We disagree. Although
petitioner was contracted to perform–-and was paid for--full-time
employment with Casey, she argues that she worked only 8 hours
per week. The evidence, however, contradicts petitioners’ claim.
See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986) (stating “we
are not required to accept the self-serving testimony of
petitioner * * * as gospel.”).
The job description for petitioner’s position at Casey
specifically states that her position at times required workweeks
in excess of 40 hours. Her employment contracts were for full-
time employment during the relevant time periods. Even Casey’s
payroll records indicate that petitioner worked a full-time
schedule: 2,080 per year is the equivalent of 40 hours per week.
Although it may be possible that she did not work a 40-hour week
each week as documented by payroll–-professional salaried
employees often are not on a fixed schedule yet something must be
entered into the accounting software--it is not reasonable to
assume that a nonprofit organization would pay anyone in excess
of $55,000 per year plus benefits for working only 8 hours per
week.7 The 2,080 hours Casey’s payroll records show far exceed
the 774 hour maximum petitioner would have been able to work and
still meet the test outlined in section 469(c)(7)(B).
7 That works out to approximately $132 per hour.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 10, 2007