- 19 -
testimony, in any event, would not have made a difference. See
Veterinary Surgical Consultants, P.C. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-48 (where Grey testified that he was unaware of the Tex.
Carbonate Co. v. Phinney, supra, case until posttrial briefing,
during the fall of 2001, in Joseph M. Grey Pub. Accountant, P.C.
v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 121 (2002)). Petitioner failed to
establish that it relied on judicial precedent or, for that
matter, on any of the other sources specified in Section
530(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, we conclude that subparagraph (A)
does not aid petitioner here.
The same result obtains with respect to subparagraphs (B)
and (C). The parties have stipulated that respondent did not
audit petitioner for employment tax purposes prior to the
examination underlying the present case. Petitioner therefore
cannot show reliance on a past audit under Section 530(a)(2)(B).
Likewise, petitioner has adduced no evidence of conventions in
the siding and remodeling industry to establish longstanding
industry practice under Section 530(a)(2)(C). The safe havens of
Section 530(a)(2) are therefore inapplicable on the record before
us.
In seeking to establish a reasonable basis for Murdock’s
treatment apart from the safe havens, petitioner quotes the
following definition of “employment status” in Section 530(c)(2):
“The term ‘employment status’ means the status of an individual,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011