Superior Proside, Inc. - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
               Concerning the existence of a reasonable basis for purposes            
          of Section 530(a)(1), Section 530(a)(2) sets forth three                    
          statutory safe havens.  Reliance upon any of the circumstances              
          enumerated in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of Section 530(a)(2)            
          is deemed sufficient to establish the requisite reasonable basis.           
               Subparagraph (A) lists judicial precedent, published                   
          rulings, technical advice with respect to the taxpayer, or a                
          letter ruling to the taxpayer.  The second amended petition                 
          alleges:                                                                    
                    For reasonable basis for Petitioner’s reliance on                 
               the non-employee status of Thomas L. Murdock in                        
               reference to his services performed on behalf of                       
               Petitioner during 1995, 1996, and 1997, Petitioner                     
               asserts judicial precedent in Texas Carbonate Company                  
               v. R.L. Phinney, 307 F.2d 289 (5th Cir.), cert denied,                 
               371 U.S. (1962); wherein that Court’s opinion stated                   
               that an officer of a corporation is not an employee per                
               se, and that an employer and employee (master and                      
               servant) relationship must exist between a corporation                 
               and an officer of the corporation, for which an officer                
               performs services.                                                     
          On brief, petitioner reiterates reliance on Tex. Carbonate Co. v.           
          Phinney, 307 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1962), and cites as well to                 
          Automated Typesetting, Inc. v. United States, 527 F. Supp. 515              
          (E.D. Wis. 1981), in support of the premise that petitioner                 
          reasonably looked to common law control concepts in classifying             
          Murdock.                                                                    
               For the reasons previously discussed, Tex. Carbonate Co. v.            
          Phinney, supra, does not afford a reasonable basis for disregard            
          of the explicit rules of section 3121(d)(1) and sections                    





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011