Mike J. Graham Trucking, Inc. - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
          As Graham testified, he is “a one man band” with respect to                 
          petitioner’s business activities.  Graham also obtained                     
          remuneration from petitioner’s bank account as his needs arose.             
               Furthermore, although section 3121(d)(1) may be inapplicable           
          to the extent that an officer performs services in some other               
          capacity, i.e., as an independent contractor, petitioner does not           
          contend and offered no evidence that Graham worked for or was               
          engaged by petitioner in a capacity other than president.  See              
          Joseph M. Grey Pub. Accountant, P.C. v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at           
          129-130; Rev. Rul. 82-83, 1982-1 C.B. 151, 152.  Hence, we                  
          conclude that Graham was an employee of petitioner for employment           
          tax purposes, in accordance with section 3121(d)(1).                        
               B.  Availability of Section 530 Relief                                 
               Section 530 affords relief from employment tax liability,              
          notwithstanding an adverse classification, where the following              
          three requirements are satisfied:  (1) The taxpayer has not                 
          treated the individual, or any individual holding a substantially           
          similar position, as an employee for any period; (2) the taxpayer           
          has consistently treated the individual as not being an employee            
          on all tax returns for periods after December 31, 1978; and                 
          (3) the taxpayer has a reasonable basis for not treating the                
          individual as an employee.  Sec. 530(a)(1), (3).  With respect to           
          the case at bar, respondent has conceded that petitioner meets              
          the first of the above requirements and does not argue that                 






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011