- 10 -
Respondent makes two arguments in response: First, respondent
argues that petitioners may not invoke Section 530 because its
relief is available only to employers with respect to their
liability for subtitle C employment taxes, and Dr. Pariani was
not an employer so liable. Second, respondent argues that, even
if petitioners could invoke Section 530, the threshold
requirements of that section have not been satisfied. We agree
with respondent.
Section 530 by its clear terms has limited application. The
section designates certain circumstances where an "individual"
who has not been treated as an employee by the "taxpayer" shall
be deemed not to be an employee "for purposes of applying * * *
[employment] taxes * * * with respect to the taxpayer". Sec.
530(a)(1), flush language. "Taxpayer" as used in the context of
Section 530 refers to an employer, and "employment tax" for
purposes of the section is defined as "any tax imposed by
subtitle C" of the Internal Revenue Code. Sec. 530(c)(1). Thus,
Section 530 by its terms is confined to the applicability of
subtitle C taxes to an employer-taxpayer and operates to
"terminate"6 such taxes if certain conditions are met. As
subtitle C taxes are not at issue in this case, Section 530 is of
no help to petitioners. Moreover, even if petitioners could
6 The heading of Sec. 530(a) states: "Termination of
Certain Employment Tax Liability".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011