- 17 -
analysis of the statute and its history leads us to the
conclusion that section 530 is limited to controversies involving
the employment tax status of service providers under the common
law (i.e., controversies involving persons who are not statutory
employees). This conclusion provides an alternative ground for
denying petitioner relief under section 530.
C. Analysis of the Scope of Section 530
Although subsection (a) of section 530 by its terms is not
limited to situations involving worker classification under the
common law, the same cannot be said of subsections (b)
(moratorium on further guidance) and (e)(1) (notice requirement)
of section 530. See sec. 530(c)(2), defining the term
“employment status”, which appears in subsections (b) and (e)(1),
in terms of “the usual common law rules applicable in determining
the employer-employee relationship”. While it can be argued that
the restricted scope of the moratorium in subsection (b) is not
necessarily inconsistent with a broad interpretation of the
relief provision of subsection (a), such an argument is more
problematic as applied to the notice requirement of subsection
(e)(1).9 That is, under a broad interpretation of subsection
(a), some taxpayers who are eligible for relief under that
9 Sec. 530(e)(1) applies to audits commencing after
Dec. 31, 1996. 1996 Act sec. 1122(b)(2). Because we refer to
sec. 530(e)(1) solely in conjunction with our interpretation of
sec. 530(a), we need not determine (and the parties have not
established) whether sec. 530(e)(1) itself applies to this case.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011