-27-
to the treatment (for employment tax purposes) of the
individuals holding positions substantially similar to
the position held by this individual; or
(C) long-standing recognized practice of a
significant segment of the industry in which such
individual was engaged.
We disagree with petitioner that it is entitled to relief
under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. Under a literal
reading of that text, three requirements must be met in order for
petitioner to receive the relief described therein. First, as to
the disputed payments, petitioner must not have treated Ms. Odell
as an employee for any period. Second, petitioner must have
consistently treated Ms. Odell as not being an employee as to
those payments on all tax returns for periods after December 31,
1978. Third, petitioner must have had a reasonable basis for not
treating Ms. Odell as an employee as to those payments. All
three requirements must be met in order for petitioner to qualify
for relief under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978.
We start our analysis with the third requirement; i.e.,
whether petitioner had a reasonable basis for not treating Ms.
Odell as an employee with respect to the disputed payments.
Section 530(a)(2) of the Revenue Act of 1978 provides a safe
harbor for satisfying this requirement. Under the safe harbor,
petitioner will have had a reasonable basis for not treating Ms.
Odell as an employee as to the disputed payments if the record
establishes that, in so treating her, petitioner reasonably
relied on the existence of any of the circumstances listed in
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011