here i have fool for a client and the trial held that i was incredible that my credibility was not to be believed as does the government they don't believe me either an officer of the corporation is considered to be an employee as of recent indicate this was added in the one nine hundred thirty five law and a little later because the carcass was concerned that a foreman or a person in control of people would not be an employee congress wanted to make sure that the term employer he could include a person who was an officer or a ability which are of some articles with corporation as most things that happen in private practice the accountant reported the income i reported what drew out it went on like many things in law as corporation really should be disregarded but it was filed and returns were filed lawsuits twenty years active in finding returns on behalf of corporations so i have over my hard time accepting an argument that says well it never really happened even though i said it happened the year after year after year after year and i'm a tax lawyer and i should know that you are that's a good question begin to think that maybe he had a reason for not finding your testimony credible reshape the court saying that your honor i've challenged the court t officer local wal requires that the right directors me and elect an officer i filed with the state of washington where it says are you an officer that said yes on the president why now unfortunately ho court asked credibility the court or the secretary of state will not accept a list of officers unless the president is filled in and that's the secretary of state's concern you've been telling the i r s for years that you're the president i have a hard time with the position that total resident patient of all that law there is no dispute as to whether these cases are applied all of them apply there about lawyers who paid settlements to avoid adverse publicity are reported and the government did not dispute hundred eleven thousand on my schedule c as law and come the trial court said that since they classified me as an employee this is the doctor which the government stipulated was deductible but just where it was on the return is a spiritual a an itemized deduction actually that was wrong because if you're an employee how can you get an itemized deduction to protect your tax court three twenty five that goes up hold the same type of deduction i'm urging to this court that if i had schedule c income that they did not attack why can i can i not get duction as an employee or a schedule steve business expense because it supported in the record in all the cases the government has no cases to the contrary the court did not review any of my cases and actually ignor it all on top of that the court said look even though you file the form of the internal revenue service of this issue with your tax return you're still negligent and you will fully misled the government is a independent contractor thirty one the one i think it is only goes if you're not an employee your argument prevails only if we accept your argument that you are not an employee right it's yes your honor the the excerpt speech forty two our report one hundred eleven thousand gross income and seventy two thousand expenses the government didn't touch that in a perfect world i guess you pro it's totally inconsistent but more important i'm in private practice so long i report a schedule c i had all these other deductions that they didn't touch and it's certainly a business expense to protect your reputation to pay a return again that i filed the form citing the cases none of which i even asked today have been disputed they're exactly in point i covered them in my free like telling my grief i try to teach called seeds the local district court judge chief judge nielsen held in my favor on a client case that an officer was not an employee so do i have substantial justification i submit to and so there was a successful sustaining by district court judge and the government did not appeal at the case so i'm saying that your honor substantial thore why should i be criminalized when there are cases in support of what i took on my own return income on the money personal returns kind of an imputation of in saying well look we compare the corporate return and we made it in a sense this is the tax thing schedule c return and we made it in a sense chapter asked for all the income passes through these even make it worse they took a fiscal year ending and compared it to a calendar year and my the money that the corporation claims as a as an expense for compensation has got to match up on the other side with what the people being compensated have received setting up with this figure that's different than a calendar year doesn't obscure the much money coming in as they show going out reason they don't match your honor is their fiscal year comparisons to i think that that works for one period but it doesn't work over several years i can give the court another example  balance of the monies the show up for the show off that's right your honor i exhibit excerpts one twenty through put in the exhibits matching that and then the court's exhibits at the revenue agent relied on the diagram is that excerpt one twenty five and the agent said zero in ninety one forty five thousand there was a negative reported more income for the comparison for the different periods reported fifty seven hundred more income then she analyze was withdrawn so there's a negative in the middle year then she rounded the forty fourth the forty two thousand and then well i think it's a mistake that she saw the counts that were never distributed to me so it was a catch all account and it would have just stuck but eventually it has to even out i agree with the court and the rents vary from year to year there were third party grants that came and that i reported that weren't reported there so it's the course there is correct it eventually has to work up the analysis the revenue agent maybe was wrong half the time and and her analysis  wrong and you can't make the imputation when you have to prove it by actual distributions of the church and that's what i wrote on the cost alone or case of the brief the caribbean amputation of income unless there's a paycheck there for ninety to ninety four that forty two or forty five thousand dollars wasn't reported consistently they simply said we want you to report that didn't really matter in terms of the amount of income that is not of income of legal services but of leasing services and for i don't know whether it's the same final that we're hearing about but to the extent that the individual taxpayer was receiving money for lease ran for equipment office space whatever it was then that would be a separate business activity than legal services you're exactly right but i don't really know how they separated out or whether they did many if if if they were if they didn't have that separate  kept calculate each separately and in this case there's not for ninety two and ninety four because what happens is when you look at an individual's return and you figure out income tax the self employment taxes all on that same return and you come up were in fact prorated to his income tax and so there turned out not to be a credit for ninety two and ninety four in fact were deficiencies for thirty years or so but in the end when the eye rest looks corporation can prove that the individual paid that same amount of income tax then the i r s doesn't collect in other words you're not looking for us are expecting this court to decide any amount the taxpayer is facing a judgment we have the two separate cases in front of the same time that this will have to have a deficiency in effect a judgment against the corporation a judgment against the individual if there's an overlap you can tell us they are self employment tax just self employment as we talk about income tax that's different than self employment about the income those dollar numbers become for court purposes a judgment that can't be attacked subsequently and if those dollar numbers overlap such that if western management is required to pay the full amount listed there in the individual taxpayers or a part of the  that there if there is a a government accounting of some sort if what the taxpayers is required to pay results in western management under thirty four o two d not properly being liable for some part of the number this down for them you can tell us that the i r s won't collect but our problem is we've issued a judgment which the taxpayer doesn't have another way to go after in case you win this and the taxpayer can't reach an agreement on what that overlapping amou to fix that before not to leave it to the administrative process later to hope that it works out properly because we've been indications that the i r s and the taxpayers aren't reaching agreements on everything so that's where we are all i can say is yet and you've got to try to get a murder you can it sort of like a joint and what we would deal with more commonly is a joint and several liability for the overlapping amount you don't want the deficiencies to be reduced for either one or the other and tell your entire looks like that from either one whoever you can know that there is a portion that is joint and several making reference to thirty four zero two d that at least would give the taxpayer a recourse later if in fact there turns out to be an inability to agree on how much shouldn't be paid by property remaining and if the judgment isn't fully clear to us that's something that we do all the time if a judgment comes up from a court and we can understand what the court did we generally do re mi and for the there are employment cases with responsible officers where you could have you know two officers who haven't paid the employment taxes and the bills are individually live on that's right for the taxpayer the tax court is the finder of fact and so we do and they rely upon the to determine what that's one of the recent gesture on or in ninety two and there's a reference to western management of court of claims i paid there some eighteen thousand dollars refund requested for ninety two we the same issue as present and just firestone there said i'm stating this case to length circuit makes a decision so there's eighteen thousand setting there on a refund requested by western management all of the taxes here with holding so security are all regarding myself the employee who would cross by his actual voice to people me off some sole practitioner all of that with that states clearly that if the tax is paid by the recipient there must be a credit she admits it was paid the court made a double assessment of income tax the social security was paid by me as self employment again the tax returns verify that there's a deduction taken for twenty two hundred dollars which is half of what was paid forty four hundred dollars that's i'm receiving social security now the only so security out there we're talking about a different type we're talking about do i qualify for a pension none of the money paid some forty thousand already have paid what taxpayers have paid including the court of claims amounts of money and that there be a rehearing or it's up to the course the trial court to determine what amounts been paid and then a judgment reduced it it judgement which is is has been rendered against me the irony of course is that if any amount paid by western management is credited to me there is collection of social security how come i'm not going to get any more social security because it is difficult collection in theory the government as a trustee and it should not over collect there's a difference of course in this case when you're talk