- 14 - The record is devoid of any evidence that petitioner relied on a prior decision, in any form, or audit conducted by the IRS to support his claim for relief. Petitioner’s testimony that he researched the utility of chair rental agreements by speaking to hired beauticians or other salons in the area does not meet the burden of establishing an industrywide practice of treating beauticians as independent contractors. Petitioner did not offer any witnesses to testify about an industry practice of renting chairs to beauticians and treating them as independent contractors. See, e.g., Gen. Inv. Corp. v. United States, 823 F.2d. Petitioner’s final contention is that although he did not meet the statutory requirements of section 530, he is entitled to relief because he “complied with the spirit of section 530". We recognize that section 530 was enacted by Congress to alleviate what it perceived as overzealous tax collection activity by the IRS. See Boles Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 77 F.3d 236, 239 (8th Cir. 1996); Ren-Lyn Corp. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 363, 366 (N.D. Ohio 1997). In Erickson v. Commissioner, 172 Bankr. 900, 912 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1994), the court noted: The essence of the safe harbor provision is to grant protection to the taxpayer who has consistently treated workers as independent contractors but has not been previously challenged by the IRS. In effect, where the taxpayer’s filings have put the IRS on notice and the IRS has not acted without delay, the taxpayer must be shielded from the compounding effects of the error.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