- 22 -
trucking companies. Although, petitioner never questioned the
witnesses about their worker status at those other companies,
petitioner testified that when he was a driver for other
companies, he was treated as an independent contractor.
Petitioner's experience by itself is not evidence of the
"long-standing recognized practice of a significant segment" of
the trucking industry. See, e.g., Small Business Job Protection
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-188, sec. 1122, 110 Stat. 1755, 1766
(amending section 530 by adding new subsection (e), which
provides that "in no event shall the significant segment
requirement * * * be construed to require a reasonable showing of
the practice of more than 25 percent of the industry (determined
by not taking into account the taxpayer)").
The three statutory safe harbor methods are not the
exclusive ways that a taxpayer may qualify for section 530
relief. A taxpayer may qualify by demonstrating that it had some
other reasonable basis for treating its workers as independent
contractors. See H. Rept. 95-1748, at 5 (1978), 1978-3 C.B.
(Vol. 1) 629, 633 ("A taxpayer who can demonstrate a reasonable
basis for the treatment of an individual in some other manner
also is entitled to termination of employment tax liabilities.");
see also Boles Trucking, Inc. v. United States, supra at 239.
As evidence of a reasonable basis for treating the drivers
as independent contractors, petitioner proffered a letter dated
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011