- 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 reliefPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011