- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011