- 13 -
was not made or if the required filing was made on a basis not
consistent with treatment of the individual as not being an
employee. As respondent acknowledges, petitioner filed all
required returns for 1996 on a basis consistent with the
treatment of the reclassified physicians as not being employees.
But there is nothing in the language of section 530(a)(1)(B) that
requires timeliness along with consistent filing.
The unreality of respondent’s approach is illustrated by the
following colloquy that took place at trial:
THE COURT: Suppose a taxpayer is required to file
the 1096 and the 1099s and the office burns down two
weeks before the due date and the taxpayer writes a
letter to the--well, I don’t know who, but somebody in
the IRS and says, Look, our office burned down and our
records are destroyed; we need some additional time.
You’re not saying that the statute would preclude the
Government from granting an extension of time, are you?
MS. GROBE: Yes, Your Honor. I am.
* * * * * * *
This is a relief section. They still have the
ability to come in and argue that these workers are not
independent contractors--rather, are not employees;
they are independent contractors.
The “relief” proposed by respondent’s counsel presents
precisely the situation that section 530 was enacted to avoid.
In the case before us respondent has proposed a deficiency in the
amount of $256,628.61, to dispute which, under respondent’s
theory, petitioner would be required to prove the status of each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011