- 12 - OPINION I. Income Inclusions A. 1998 and 1999 The parties stipulated7 that petitioner worked for Watson, Inc., in 1998 and 1999, and petitioner does not dispute his receipt of the amounts reflected as wages or other compensation on the Forms W-2 and 1099-MISC issued by Watson, Inc., for those years. Whether petitioner constituted an employee of Watson, Inc., or performed services for that company as a “private independent contractor” (petitioner’s position), he was in receipt of either “compensation for services” or “gross income derived from business” includable in his gross income under either section 61(a)(1) or section 61(a)(2). His failure to include in income the amounts received from Watson, Inc. ($48,000 for 1998 and $14,400 for 1999), was improper. It is also stipulated that petitioner received from Mobil Pension Trust Forms 1099-R reflecting gross distributions to him of $1,114.04 and $3,342.12 for 1998 and 1999, respectively, and 7 The stipulations are identified as either “Respondent’s Stipulations” (1-16) or “Petitioner’s Stipulations” (17-36). Petitioner reserved the right to object to respondent’s stipulations 3-16, and respondent reserved the right to object to all of petitioner’s stipulations. At the trial, petitioner stated that he had no objections to respondent’s stipulations 3- 16, and respondent did not raise any objection to petitioner’s stipulations. The stipulation of facts was thereupon received into evidence without objection. Therefore, we consider the stipulations to be the parties’ joint stipulation of facts.Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007