Nu-look Design, Inc. - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          are:  (1) Whether Ronald A. Stark (Stark) was an employee of                
          petitioner for Federal employment tax purposes during 1996                  
          through 1998 and, if so, (2) whether petitioner is entitled to              
          relief under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-            
          600, 92 Stat. 2885, as amended (Section 530).                               
               Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to              
          the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and             
          all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and              
          Procedure.  For convenience, FICA and FUTA taxes are collectively           
          referred to as employment taxes.                                            
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts were deemed stipulated pursuant to Rule              
          91(f); certain additional facts have been stipulated by the                 
          parties.  The stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings             
          by this reference.                                                          
          Petitioner’s Organization and Operations                                    
               Stark has been in the home improvement business since 1963.            
          After operating his business as a sole proprietorship from 1963             
          through 1986, Stark decided to incorporate for the purpose of               
          obtaining the benefits of limited shareholder liability for debts           
          of the corporation.  Petitioner was incorporated in Pennsylvania            
          on January 20, 1987, and has at all relevant times operated as an           
          S corporation.  Petitioner’s principal place of business was                








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011