Veterinary Surgical Consultants, P.C. - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
          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             
          Sadanaga.                                                                   
               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                    
          31.3121(d)-1(b) and 31.3306(i)-1(e), Employment Tax Regs.  In               
          affirming our opinion in petitioner’s prior case, the Court of              
          Appeals ruled:                                                              
               Texas Carbonate is not authoritative and it does not                   
               support the taxpayers’ argument * * *.  Thus, any                      
               reliance upon Texas Carbonate * * * was unreasonable,                  
               particularly in light of the subsequent decisions in                   
               Radtke * * * [Joseph Radtke, S.C. v. United States, 895                
               F.2d 1196, 1197-1198 (7th Cir. 1990)], and Spicer                      
               Accounting * * * [Spicer Accounting, Inc. v. United                    
               States, 918 F.2d 90, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1990)].  Indeed,                  
               Spicer Accounting rejected the taxpayer’s argument that                
               it had a reasonable basis for not treating its officer                 
               as an employee under Section 530 and should not be held                
               liable.  The court reasoned that Mr. Spicer was “for                   
               all practical purposes, the central worker for the                     
               taxpayer” and it declared that a “corporation’s sole                   
               full-time worker must be treated as an employee.”  918                 
               F.2d at 95.  [Yeagle Drywall Co. v. Commissioner, 54                   
               Fed. Appx. at 104.]                                                    
               Equally unavailing in this regard is Automated Typesetting,            
          Inc. v. United States, supra.  The District Court in that case              
          simply evaluated the employment relationship of the involved                
          individuals both through a common law analysis and through                  
          application of the provisions relating to corporate officers.               






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011