- 12 - following: (1) Petitioner has not treated any of the beauticians as employees for any period; (2) petitioner has filed all Federal tax returns (including information returns) with respect to each beautician on a basis consistent with petitioner’s treatment of such individual as not being an employee; and (3) petitioner has a reasonable basis for not treating the beauticians as an employee. Revenue Act of 1978, sec. 530(a)(1), (3), 92 Stat. 2885, 2886. Petitioner failed to meet the technical requirements of section 530. First, petitioner conceded that he treated the beauticians as employees for the first quarter of 1994, thus violating the first requirement that the beauticians were not treated as employees at any time. Section 530(a)(3) further clarifies this requirement by providing that if the “taxpayer (or a predecessor)” treated any individual holding a “substantially similar position as an employee”, then section 530 relief is not available to the taxpayer. Revenue Act of 1978, sec. 530(a)(1), (3), 92 Stat. 2885, 2886. In the present case, petitioner also conceded that his predecessor treated her beauticians as employees, albeit they were not the same individuals working under petitioner,6 although petitioner did not consistently treat 6 We note that the statute does not require the individuals to be identical under predecessor and petitioner; rather, the analysis focuses on whether individuals were in substantially similar positions under both circumstances.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011