                        T.C. Memo. 2010-214



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 MARTIN C. COOPER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20768-07.              Filed October 5, 2010.



     Mark M. Mockensturm, for petitioner.

     Elizabeth R. Edberg, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     PARIS, Judge:   In a notice of deficiency dated June 19,

2007, respondent determined deficiencies of $80,988 and $58,193

in petitioner’s Federal income tax and accuracy-related penalties

of $16,197.60 and $11,638.60 under section 6662(a)1 for tax years


     1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 2 -

2003 and 2004, respectively.2   Petitioner timely petitioned this

Court for review of respondent’s determinations.

     The parties have submitted this case fully stipulated under

Rule 122.   The only remaining issue is whether petitioner was a

common law employee or an independent contractor for tax years

2003 and 2004.

                            Background

     The parties do not dispute the following.   On September 14,

2006, petitioner filed a Form SS-8, Determination of Worker

Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax

Withholding, with respondent to determine whether his employment

status with Securities Service Network, Inc. (SSN Inc.), was that

of an employee or an independent contractor.   On April 4, 2007,

respondent issued a letter to petitioner and to SSN Inc.

determining that petitioner was an employee of SSN Inc.

     A portion of each deficiency, as reflected in the notice,

was attributable to respondent’s determination that petitioner

worked for SSN Inc. as an employee rather than as an independent

contractor.   Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court

on September 12, 2007.   Petitioner resided in Ohio when he filed

his petition.


     1
      (...continued)
1986, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
     2
      Respondent has conceded the penalties.
                              - 3 -

     When petitioner originally filed his petition, he argued

that respondent’s determination was incorrect as he was an

independent contractor, not an employee.    However, since filing

his petition, petitioner has conceded that he was an employee of

SSN Inc.

                           Discussion

     Petitioner’s worker status was the only issue left

unresolved by the parties’ stipulation of settled issues.

Petitioner no longer disputes respondent’s determination that he

was an employee of SSN Inc. for tax years 2003 and 2004.3

“[C]ourts will not gratuitously decide complex issues that cannot

affect the disposition of the case before them.”     LTV Corp. v.

Commissioner, 64 T.C. 589, 595 (1975).     Therefore, this Court

sustains the deficiencies attributable to respondent’s

determination that petitioner worked for SSN Inc. as an

employee.4




     3
      The notice of deficiency was predicated in part on
respondent’s determination that petitioner was an employee, thus
limiting the deductibility of expenses reported on petitioner’s
Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business.
     4
      Petitioner has asked the Court to “draw a defining line
explaining what qualifies as permissive supervisory control under
section 921(a) of the Taxpayer’s Relief Act of 1997 when
determining employment status of a securities broker dealer for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code”. This Court is not at
liberty to issue advisory opinions when no tax controversy
exists.
                                 - 4 -

     In reaching the conclusions described herein, the Court has

considered all arguments made, and to the extent not mentioned

above, concludes they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                      under Rule 155.
