                     T.C. Summary Opinion 2012-2



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                THOMAS G. HENK, JR., Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7120-10S.               Filed January 4, 2012.



     Thomas G. Henk, Jr., pro se.

     Scott W. Forbord and Mark J. Miller, for respondent.



     COHEN, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect

when the petition was filed.   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and

this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case.   Subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue

Code in effect for the year in issue.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,857 in petitioner’s

Federal income tax for 2007 that was based on income reported to

the Internal Revenue Service on Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous

Income, but not reported on petitioner’s return.    The deficiency

determined included self-employment tax that is now conceded by

respondent.   The recomputed deficiency in issue is $1,530.

                            Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.

Petitioner resided in Wisconsin when he filed his petition.

     During 2007, petitioner was employed by Dealer Financial

Systems and earned wages that were paid weekly.    On June 13,

2007, petitioner’s employment was terminated, and he was given

severance pay by a Franklin Financial Corp. check for $10,182.80.

Franklin Financial Corp. was a “sister corporation” of Dealer

Financial Systems.

     A Form 1099-MISC given to petitioner and sent to the

Internal Revenue Service reported the severance pay.    Dealer

Financial Systems reported petitioner’s 2007 wages of $22,573.69

on a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.

     Petitioner did not report the severance pay on his tax

return for 2007.   Respondent determined that the unreported

amount was nonemployee compensation subject to income and self-

employment tax.
                                - 3 -

                             Discussion

     Petitioner denied ever working for Franklin Financial Corp.

and initially disputed receipt of the severance pay reflected in

the Form 1099-MISC.    However, by the time of trial he stipulated

that he had received a check for $10,182.80 from that entity.       He

contends that his former employer paid the severance from a

different entity and reported it on Form 1099-MISC to avoid

employment taxes and to shift the burden of such taxes to him.

     The record does not contain any explanation of why

petitioner’s severance pay was paid by an entity other than the

one that paid his wages.   Nonetheless, there is no dispute as to

the purpose of the payment, and it is income that petitioner

should have reported on his return for 2007.      See sec. 61(a)(1)

(gross income means all income from whatever source derived and

includes compensation for services, including fees, commissions,

fringe benefits, and similar items).      Petitioner’s suspicions

concerning the motivation of his former employer are irrelevant

to the taxability of the amount that he received.     Neither the

employer’s liability for employment taxes nor petitioner’s share

is before the Court.   See McWhorter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2008-263; Lucas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-14 n.3; Grooms

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-291.
                         - 4 -

To reflect respondent’s concession,


                                 Decision will be entered for

                          respondent for a deficiency of

                          $1,530.
