Case ID: f-appx_137/html/0373-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James E. ANDERSON, et al., Petitioners, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Appellee.
    No. 04-2628.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    July 5, 2005.
    James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos on brief pro se.
    Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Clark and Kenneth W. Rosenberg on brief for appellee.
    Before TORRUELLA, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the Tax Court. Among other problems, the appellants fail to show that the statute categorizes their income as employee income. ‘Proceeds’ is not synonymous with ‘gross proceeds’. The amount of compensation paid to one entitled to receive only a share of the net proceeds from the sale of the catch depends on the size of the catch, as required.

The appellants have not presented a coherent account of their interpretation of the regulation. The amount of a share of the catch, in their sense, must always depend on many factors other than catch-size, e.g., the market and other conditions.

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c). 
      
      . Accordingly, we deny oral argument.