Charles R. Clarke, D.B.A. Maxi's Today's Hair - Page 15




                                       - 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