- 29 -
ended. Petitioner, therefore, had a reasonable basis for
classifying the instructors as independent contractors.
Lastly, respondent argues that petitioner failed to provide
the appropriate IRS personnel with the relevant information under
its control and relevant legal arguments supporting its position.
See sec. 301.7430-5(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner
cooperated with the audit, and petitioner properly filed a small
case request in accordance with Publication 5 and the 30-day
letter as discussed above. Petitioner’s request for an Appeals
Office conference stated that on the basis of the 20 common law
factors it did not agree with the conclusions set out in the 30-
day letter. Determining the type of working relationship, as we
have previously stated, requires a fact-based analysis. The
record shows that petitioner provided the examining agent with
all of the relevant factual information she sought, including
access to interview its owner and instructors. We therefore find
that petitioner satisfied the requirement of section 301.7430-
5(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Taking our findings together, we hold respondent’s
litigating position was not substantially justified.
C. Did Petitioner Unreasonably Protract the Proceedings?
Respondent argues that petitioner unreasonably protracted
the proceedings by failing to provide a written protest before
the notice of determination was issued. We disagree. We have
already concluded that the Examination Division’s failure to
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011