DocketNumber: No. 1925-01
Judges: "Goeke, Joseph Robert"
Filed Date: 6/10/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
*167 Petitioner was liable for self-employment tax for years in issue. Petitioner was not entitled to dependency exemption deduction for Jessy for years in issue. Petitioner was liable for addition to tax under
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows:
Additions to Tax
______________________________________________
Year Deficiency
1996 $ 10,679 $ 2,402.78
1998
1999
*168 After concessions,
The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to
During 1996, petitioner worked as a pipe layer and equipment operator in Eugene, Oregon. Petitioner initially performed this work as a consultant and then as an independent contractor. Petitioner received compensation for services of $ 38,000 in the taxable year 1996. During 1997, 1998, and 1999, petitioner worked for Blue Mt. Conservative Baptist Association's Camp Elkanah as a groundskeeper/maintenance supervisor. During these years, petitioner performed his work as an independent contractor. Petitioner received compensation for services of $ 19,007, $ 22,412, and $ 23,295 in the taxable years 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively.
Petitioner received interest of $ 11, $ 8, $ 9, and $ 8 in the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively.
During the years in issue, petitioner was married and resided with and supported his minor child, Jessy Turnidge (Jessy). *170 was a dependent of petitioner within the meaning of
The parties stipulated that petitioner worked as an independent contractor during the years in issue. A taxpayer is generally entitled to claim an exemption for*173 each child who qualifies as a dependent under *174 This Court has held that the SSN requirement is the least restrictive means of achieving the Government's compelling interests in implementing the Federal tax system in a uniform, mandatory way and in detecting fraud in regard to dependency exemptions. Under *176 The parties stipulated that petitioner received compensation for services and interest (which were of amounts sufficient to require him to file Federal income tax returns), and that petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Thus, we find that respondent has met his burden of production. See, e.g., Decision will be entered under
1. In the notices of deficiency, respondent listed these amounts as "To Be Computed".↩
1. The notices of deficiency contain a number of adjustments for the years in issue. Respondent determined that for all years petitioner was required to include in gross income amounts received as compensation for services and as interest. Respondent also determined that petitioner was entitled to deductions in 1997, 1998, and 1999 for health insurance premiums paid, and that petitioner was entitled to deductions in all years in issue for certain expenses claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business. Respondent further determined that for all years in issue petitioner was entitled to the standard deduction based on married filing separately status and to one personal exemption for himself. Finally, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for additions to tax under
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
3. Jessy Turnidge (Jessy) was born Oct. 13, 1993.↩
4. Petitioner also has an older daughter, Jolivia Turnidge (Jolivia), who was born on Aug. 28, 1977. Petitioner is not claiming a dependency exemption deduction for Jolivia for any of the years in issue.↩
5. Our resolution of the issues related to petitioner's income and self-employment tax liabilities for the years in issue does not depend on who has the burden of proof in this case. With respect to the burden of proof for the
6. The parties stipulated that petitioner performed some work in 1996 as a consultant. Respondent treated all of petitioner's 1996 earnings as self-employment income subject to the self-employment tax. Petitioner does not dispute this treatment.↩
7. Respondent is not arguing that Jessy was not a dependent of petitioner during the years in issue.↩
8.
9.