- 15 -
individual workers under the common law employment rules. The
Commissioner is entitled to require timely filing and to impose a
penalty, when appropriate, for failure to timely file, but not
the penalty he seeks to impose here.
Respondent also cites the Commissioner’s interpretation of
section 530(a)(1)(B) in Rev. Proc. 85-18 and implies that it
warrants deference by this Court. In United States v. Mead
Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), the Supreme Court held that an
administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute must be
accorded the level of deference set forth in Skidmore v. Swift &
Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). The deference required depends on the
thoroughness evident in the agency’s consideration, the validity
of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later
pronouncements, and all those factors which give it the power to
persuade. United States v. Mead, supra at 228 (citing Skidmore
v. Swift & Co., supra at 140).
Rev. Proc. 85-18 is consistent with Rev. Rul. 81-224, 1981-2
C.B. 197, which held that a taxpayer, who delinquently filed the
required returns during the course of an employment tax audit,
was not entitled to relief under section 530. Rev. Proc. 85-18
has been cited for its requirement of timely filing. See In re
Critical Care Support Servs., Inc., 138 Bankr. 378 (Bankr.
E.D.N.Y. 1992)(citing the timely filing requirement of Rev. Proc.
85-18, and holding that the debtor was not entitled to relief
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011