- 15 -
are entitled to receive remuneration. The overwhelming weight of
the evidence here shows that Stark’s activities vis-a-vis
petitioner met these criteria. (Accordingly, considerations with
respect to burden of proof do not affect our analysis on this
point.) Stark at all relevant times served as petitioner’s
president and worked in all significant aspects of petitioner’s
business operations. Stark 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 has
neither contended nor offered evidence that Stark worked for or
was engaged by petitioner in a capacity other than as an officer.
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 Stark 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
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011