Water-Pure Systems, Inc. - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
               With respect to the case at bar, petitioner did not claim              
          entitlement to the benefits of Section 530 until posttrial                  
          briefing.  Generally, issues raised for the first time on brief             
          will not be considered when to do so would prevent the opposing             
          party from presenting evidence that might have been offered if              
          the issue had been timely raised.  DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C.           
          858, 891 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Shelby U.S.              
          Distribs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 874, 885 (1979).  Here,            
          however, even if we were to treat the issue as properly before              
          us, petitioner’s position is without merit.  It is clear that               
          petitioner failed to establish a reasonable basis for not                   
          treating Ridge as an employee.                                              
               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.  On brief, petitioner cites Tex.             
          Carbonate Co. v. Phinney, 307 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1962), and                 
          Automated Typesetting, Inc. v. United States, 527 F. Supp. 515              
          (E.D. Wis. 1981), in support of the premise that petitioner                 








Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011