- 7 -
dispute that its “nonarchitectural” services could be classified
as consulting services for purposes of section 448(d)(2)(A).
However, petitioner argues that, when drafting section 448(d)(2),
Congress intended to limit the definition of a qualified personal
service corporation to a corporation where substantially all
activities were performed in only one of the qualifying fields.
Petitioner does not cite any legislative history to support its
argument. Instead, petitioner interprets the use of “or”, which
separates the final two qualifying fields in section
448(d)(2)(A), to mean that only one qualifying field can be
considered. Petitioner argues that, to the extent the temporary
regulations allow the qualifying fields to be combined (“A
corporation meets the function test if substantially all the
corporation’s activities * * * involve the performance of
services in one or more of the following fields” (emphasis
added)), the regulations are invalid.
We need not address whether petitioner’s classification of
architectural and nonarchitectural services is correct,3 nor do
2(...continued)
burden of proof, see infra, the condition on petitioner’s
concession has been met.
3 Petitioner’s classification of services is questionable
for many reasons, not the least of which is that some of the
services petitioner now classifies as nonarchitectural services
were identified as architectural services in its promotional
materials. Any reference below to architectural services and
nonarchitectural services does not constitute a finding by this
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007