- 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 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007