Bradley M. Cohen and Kathy A. Cohen - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
               One category of statutory employee is defined as “any                  
          officer of a corporation”.  Sec. 3121(d)(1).  Regulations clarify           
          the scope of section 3121(d) in determining the employee status             
          of corporate officers as follows:                                           
               Generally, an officer of a corporation is an employee                  
               of the corporation.  However, an officer of a                          
               corporation who as such does not perform any services                  
               or performs only minor services and who neither                        
               receives nor is entitled to receive, directly or                       
               indirectly, any remuneration is considered not to be an                
               employee of the corporation. * * * [Sec. 31.3121(d)-                   
               1(b), Employment Tax Regs.]                                            
          Consequently, if an officer performs substantial services for a             
          corporation, and receives remuneration for those services, that             
          officer is an employee.  See Veterinary Surgical Consultants,               
          P.C. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 141 (2001), affd. sub nom. Yeagle            
          Drywall Co. v. Commissioner, 54 Fed. Appx. 100 (3d Cir. 2002).              
          In this case, petitioner falls within the definition of an                  
          employee because he was an officer of NHIL who provided                     
          substantial services.  Petitioner worked about 20 to 30 hours a             
          week for NHIL throughout the year; he ran the company; he was the           
          only individual who provided management services; and he received           
          compensation for those services.                                            
               Petitioners argue that respondent has disregarded the                  
          employer and employee relationship under common law in                      
          determining petitioner’s status.  Petitioners focus on the                  
          argument that respondent disregards the “question of fact as to             
          whether the corporation exercises any control over its officer.”            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011