15
meaning of section 402(e)(4)(A)(iii). We first noted that "On
its face", the liquidation of Burton's professional association
and the continuation of his medical practice in the sole
proprietorship form satisfied the formality of separation from
the service. Burton v. Commissioner, supra at 626. After
reviewing the continuity between Burton's practice as a
professional association and the subsequent practice as a sole
proprietorship, we concluded that there was only a technical
change in the employment relationship that did not result in
separation from the service. Id. at 629. We stated: "Our
conclusion that there was only a technical change in the
employment relationship is supported by the fact that Dr. Burton
continued performing the same services as a sole proprietor as he
had performed in the corporate form." Id. at 629-630; see also
Reinhardt v. Commissioner, supra (change from shareholder-
employee to independent contractor does not constitute separation
from the service); Ridenour v. United States, supra (change from
employee to partner does not constitute separation from the
service); cf. Devinaspre v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-435
(employee transfer between unrelated entities constituted
separation from the service). The analysis and reasoning in
Burton apply with equal strength to the cases before us.
Similar reasoning has been applied where a partnership
converted to a corporation. See United States v. Kintner, 216
F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1954) (former partners given credit for past
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011