Medical Emergency Care Associates, S.C., An Illinois Corporation - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          individual workers under the common law employment rules.  The              
          Commissioner is entitled to require timely filing and to impose a           
          penalty, when appropriate, for failure to timely file, but not              
          the penalty he seeks to impose here.                                        
               Respondent also cites the Commissioner’s interpretation of             
          section 530(a)(1)(B) in Rev. Proc. 85-18 and implies that it                
          warrants deference by this Court.  In United States v. Mead                 
          Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), the Supreme Court held that an                  
          administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute must be                 
          accorded the level of deference set forth in Skidmore v. Swift &            
          Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).  The deference required depends on the            
          thoroughness evident in the agency’s consideration, the validity            
          of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later                    
          pronouncements, and all those factors which give it the power to            
          persuade.  United States v. Mead, supra at 228 (citing Skidmore             
          v. Swift & Co., supra at 140).                                              
               Rev. Proc. 85-18 is consistent with Rev. Rul. 81-224, 1981-2           
          C.B. 197, which held that a taxpayer, who delinquently filed the            
          required returns during the course of an employment tax audit,              
          was not entitled to relief under section 530.  Rev. Proc. 85-18             
          has been cited for its requirement of timely filing.  See In re             
          Critical Care Support Servs., Inc., 138 Bankr. 378 (Bankr.                  
          E.D.N.Y. 1992)(citing the timely filing requirement of Rev. Proc.           
          85-18, and holding that the debtor was not entitled to relief               

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