- 6 - of its activities were devoted to the performance of architectural services, it was not a qualified personal service corporation. Respondent argues that, during 2002, petitioner was a qualified personal service corporation. Respondent asserts that petitioner met the ownership test because petitioner was owned 100 percent by employees who performed architectural services. Respondent also asserts that petitioner met the function test, and advances two alternative arguments: (1) Petitioner’s classification of architectural and nonarchitectural services is incorrect, many of the “nonarchitectural” services are actually architectural services, and more than 95 percent of petitioner’s activities involved the performance of services in the qualifying field of architecture; or (2) even if petitioner’s classification is correct, the nonarchitectural services are in the qualifying field of consulting, and more than 95 percent of petitioner’s activities involved the performance of services in the qualifying fields of architecture and consulting. Petitioner concedes that it meets the ownership test because it was owned 100 percent by architects.2 Petitioner does not 2 Apparently, petitioner concedes that it meets the ownership test only if the Court concludes that only one qualifying field can be considered in applying the function test. It is unclear why petitioner limits its concession in this manner. Nevertheless, because we consider only one of the qualifying fields in determining petitioner failed to meet its (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007