McNamara v. Commissioner , 236 F.3d 410 ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-3876
    ___________
    Michael McNamara; Nancy B.            *
    McNamara                              *
    *
    Appellants,        *
    *
    v.                        *
    *
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue,     *
    *
    Appellee.         *
    Appeals from the United States
    Tax Court.
    ___________
    No. 99-3891
    ___________
    Vincent E. Bot; Judy Bot,             *
    *
    Appellants,        *
    *
    v.                        *
    *
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue,     *
    *
    Appellee.         *
    ___________
    No. 99-3968
    ___________
    John P. Hennen; Teresa Hennen,            *
    *
    Appellants,           *
    *
    v.                           *
    *
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue,         *
    *
    Appellee.           *
    Submitted: September 13, 2000
    Filed: December 29, 2000
    Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
    These cases are appeals from Tax Court rulings that cash rental income received
    by taxpayers was includible farm income and therefore constituted earnings from self-
    employment under I.R.C. § 1402(a)(1). We reverse and remand.
    2
    I. BACKGROUND
    A. I.R.C. § 1402
    In order to fund Social Security benefits for the self-employed, the Internal
    Revenue Code taxes self-employment income. Generally, taxable self-employment
    income excludes sources that do not depend on an individual’s labor, including rentals
    from real estate. Section 1402(a)(1), however, creates an exception to that exclusion
    for rents that are
    derived under an arrangement, between the owner or tenant and another
    individual, which provides that such other individual shall produce
    agricultural or horticultural commodities . . . on such land, and that there
    shall be material participation by the owner or tenant . . . in the production
    or the management of the production of such agricultural or horticultural
    commodities, and . . . there is material participation by the owner or
    tenant . . . with respect to any such agricultural or horticultural
    commodity[.]
    Rents falling within § 1402(a)(1)’s exclusion are characterized as includible farm rental
    income, and considered earnings from self-employment.
    B. The McNamaras
    Michael McNamara began farming in Minnesota in 1977. He operated the farm
    as a joint venture with his wife Nancy McNamara until 1992, when he incorporated the
    farm under the name McNamara Farms. Mr. McNamara is the sole shareholder,
    officer, and director. McNamara Farms operates on approximately 1,250 acres, a
    portion of which is rented from the McNamaras. During 1993, 1994, and 1995--the tax
    years at issue--McNamara Farms rented under a written lease 460 acres of land and a
    house that was owned by the McNamaras. Pursuant to the lease, in the years 1993,
    3
    1994, and 1995, McNamara Farms paid the McNamaras between approximately
    $45,000 and $57,000.
    In February 1992, Mr. McNamara entered into an employment agreement with
    McNamara farms. The agreement provided that Mr. McNamara was to serve as
    general manager, responsible for field work and marketing, security of machinery and
    inventory, management of other employees, and other usual and customary duties
    associated with agricultural production. In essence, the agreement memorialized the
    duties Mr. McNamara had performed since he began farming. At the same time, Mrs.
    McNamara also entered into an employment agreement with McNamara Farms. The
    agreement provided that Mrs. McNamara would be responsible for bookkeeping,
    employee meal preparation, field work, assistance with machinery and inventory, and
    other duties as assigned. Mrs. McNamara’s employment agreement also memorialized
    the duties she had been performing since she began farming with Mr. McNamara.
    For each tax year at issue, the McNamaras filed a Form 1040 as married persons
    filing jointly, identifying their occupations as “farmer” (Mr. McNamara) and
    “bookkeeper” (Mrs. McNamara). For 1993, 1994, and 1995, they reported on
    Schedule E (Suppplemental Income and Loss), that they received net rental income
    between approximately $19,000 and $23,000. Each year, the McNamaras also
    reported wages of roughly $30,000. Each year, Mr. McNamara reported earnings from
    McNamara Farms of roughly $28,000, and Mrs. McNamara indicated earnings from
    McNamara Farms of roughly $2,500.
    The Commissioner determined the real estate rental payments the McNamaras
    received from McNamara Farms were includible in their net earnings from self-
    employment under § 1402(a)(1), and as a result the McNamaras owed self-employment
    taxes for 1993, 1994, and 1995. The McNamaras contested the Commissioner’s
    determination in the Tax Court, which ruled in the Commissioner’s favor. Looking
    beyond the terms of the lease to the McNamaras’ obligations “within the overall
    4
    scheme” of their farming operation, the Tax Court determined that “the arrangement
    between [the McNamaras] and McNamara farms provided, or contemplated, that [the
    McNamaras] materially participate in the production of agricultural commodities on the
    farmland.” McNamara v. Comm’r, 
    78 T.C.M. (CCH) 530
    , 532-33 (1999). Further,
    the court ruled that both the McNamaras had, pursuant to that scheme, materially
    participated in agricultural production. The court concluded that the rental income was
    therefore includible farm rental income subject to taxation as self-employment earnings.
    See 
    id.
    C. The Bots
    Vincent E. and Jody Bot have been farming for thirty-eight years. During the tax
    years in issue--1993, 1994, and 1995--Mr. Bot owned 160 acres of the farm, and Mrs.
    Bot owned 240 acres. Mr. Bot rented Mrs. Bot’s acreage pursuant to an oral
    agreement. In 1992, Mrs. Bot entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Bot.
    The agreement provided that Mrs. Bot was to perform various farm-related tasks, such
    as assisting with hog production and operating field machinery. The agreement
    essentially memorialized the tasks Mrs. Bot had performed since she began farming
    with Mr. Bot.
    Like the McNamaras, the Bots filed jointly as a married couple. They reported
    on Schedule E for each year at issue that Mrs. Bot received net rental income of
    approximately $18,000. They also reported that Mrs. Bot received wages of roughly
    $15,000. The Commissioner determined that the rental payments Mrs. Bot received
    from Mr. Bot were includible as net earnings from self-employment under § 1402(a)(1)
    and thus subject to self-employment tax. The Bots contested the Commissioner’s
    determination in the Tax Court, which rejected the Bots’ arguments in an opinion
    echoing its ruling against the McNamaras.
    5
    D. The Hennens
    John P. and Teresa Hennen have farmed together for thirty-eight years. During
    1994, 1995, and 1996--the years at issue--Mr. Hennen operated an 1,100-acre crop and
    livestock farm in Minnesota as a sole proprietor. Mrs. Hennen owned approximately
    two hundred of those acres, which she rented to Mr. Hennen under an oral agreement.
    For each of the years at issue, Mrs. Hennen provided--pursuant to employment
    agreements with Mr. Hennen--services to the farming operation including bookkeeping,
    running errands, and help with livestock chores and fieldwork. The employment
    agreements essentially memorialized the duties Mrs. Hennen had performed since she
    began farming with Mr. Hennen.
    The Hennens also filed jointly as a married couple. They reported on Schedule
    E for each year at issue that Mrs. Hennen received net rental income of approximately
    $12,000 to $14,000. They also reported that Mrs. Hennen received wages from Mr.
    Hennen of roughly $3,000. The Commissioner determined that the rental payments
    Mrs. Hennen received from Mr. Hennen were includible as net earnings from self-
    employment under § 1402(a)(1) and thus subject to self-employment tax. The Hennens
    contested the Commissioner’s determination in the Tax Court, which rejected the
    Hennens’ arguments in an opinion echoing its ruling against the McNamaras.
    The McNamaras, Bots, and Hennens all appeal.
    II. DISCUSSION
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
     (2000). We review the Tax
    Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. See
    Campbell v. Comm’r, 
    164 F.3d 1140
    , 1142 (8th Cir. 1999).
    6
    As an initial matter, we disagree with taxpayers that § 1402(a)(1) applies only
    to rental payments derived from sharecropping or share-farming. No such restriction
    appears in the Code, and we are unpersuaded that the legislative history compels an
    interpretation not apparent from the face of § 1402(a)(1). We also reject taxpayers’
    contention that the instructions accompanying Form 4835 (Farm Rental Income and
    Expenses) contradict and therefore override § 1402(a)(1).
    Further, we cannot say the Tax Court clearly erred in concluding, as a factual
    matter, that Mrs. McNamara, Mrs. Bot, and Mrs. Hennen were required--by their
    respective employment agreements or by more informal “arrangements”--to materially
    participate in agricultural production and management, and that all three did in fact
    materially participate in those activities. See 
    Treas. Reg. § 1.1402
    (a)-4(b) (as amended
    in 1980).
    More promising, however, is taxpayers’ argument that the lessor-lessee
    relationships should stand on their own apart from the employer-employee
    relationships. To this end, taxpayers insist that the rents in question were consistent
    with market rates for agricultural land. In fact, the transcripts of each trial contain
    uncontradicted testimony that the rents were at or slightly below fair market value.
    (McNamara Supp. App. at 7; Bot Supp. App. at 6-7; Hennen Supp. App. at 4.) The
    Tax Court’s decision, however, contains no factual finding in this regard. Moreover,
    the Commissioner apparently did not pursue the issue at trial because, as it contended
    at oral argument, the amount of the rent is irrelevant. We disagree.
    What is missing from both the Commissioner’s and the Tax Court’s analyses is
    any mention of a nexus between the rents received by Taxpayers and the “arrangement”
    that requires the landlords’ material participation. We believe this omission overlooks
    § 1402(a)(1)’s requirement that rents be “derived under” such an arrangement. That
    is to say, the mere existence of an arrangement requiring and resulting in material
    participation in agricultural production does not automatically transform rents received
    7
    by the landowner into self-employment income. It is only where the payment of those
    rents comprise part of such an arrangement that such rents can be said to derive from
    the arrangement.
    Rents that are consistent with market rates very strongly suggest that the rental
    arrangement stands on its own as an independent transaction and cannot be said to be
    part of an “arrangement” for participation in agricultural production. Although the
    Commissioner is correct that, unlike other provisions in the Code, § 1402(a)(1)
    contains no explicit safe-harbor provision for fair market value transactions, we
    conclude that this is the practical effect of the “derived under” language.
    At this point, the only evidence in the record is that the rents in question were
    at or below market rates. However, we believe the Commissioner is entitled to an
    opportunity to show a connection between those rents and the production arrangement
    it identified.
    Accordingly, these matters are remanded to the Tax Court for further
    proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-3876, 99-3891 and 99-3968

Citation Numbers: 236 F.3d 410

Judges: McMillian, Heaney, Bowman

Filed Date: 12/29/2000

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/4/2024