Decision will be entered under
PARIS,
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner lived in Florida.
During 2007 petitioner worked part time for North South Florida Rehab, Inc. (North South), in addition to her full-time job. North South hired petitioner on an as-needed basis. There was no written contract 2012 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 47">*48 signed between the parties. Petitioner believed that she was an employee on the basis of documents representing the relationship between herself and North South. However, North South considered her an independent contractor.
Petitioner typically performed clerical duties, including inputting of data, filing, and billing. North South paid petitioner using corporate checks and provided her a Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for tax purposes. No income tax was withheld from the payments, and North South did not extend to her benefits that it offered its employees.
Petitioner timely filed her 2007 Federal income tax return and did not include the payments from North South in her income. Respondent sent to petitioner a notice of deficiency determining that petitioner failed to include in income the nonemployee compensation paid to her by North South. The notice of deficiency also determined that petitioner failed to pay self-employment tax on the nonemployee compensation; however, respondent has conceded this issue.
Petitioner concedes that she received $4,451 of income from North South. She argues that the income she received was not taxable income within the meaning of the law, 2012 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 47">*49 as she was an employee of North South, and that North South should not have issued her a Form 1099-MISC.2 Alternatively, petitioner argues that the amounts paid by North South were a tax-free contribution to her.
Petitioner argued that she was an employee and should not have been issued a Form 1099-MISC. However, given that respondent conceded the self-employment tax issue, it makes no difference whether the wages were earned in the context of being an employee or a contractor. Petitioner conceded that she received the amounts at issue from North South in exchange for her services; therefore, she has gross income from compensation.
Petitioner also argues that because she was an employee, the amount should be excluded from income as a nontaxable contribution to her from North South. Petitioner has not demonstrated that she was an employee for 2007. Additionally, even if she was an employee, the amounts are still taxable.
In reaching these holdings, the Court has considered all arguments made and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties,
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the tax year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.↩
2.