The definition of an employee is this week's key issue--and we look at the matter in the case of Maimon v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-53.  Dr. Maimon attempted to argue that he was not an employee of the professional corporation he worked in (and owned some shares in), but rather was an independent contractor.  He was interested in holding this position because he had ended up personally paying over legal fees and, ultimately, a $1 million settlement, in a case involving his medical services.

The case is interesting because the Court held Dr. Maimon was not an officer and thus actually stepped through the common law tests for employment status.  In the end the court found Dr. Maimon was an employee, but the case gives a good outline of the analysis to go through even in cases that aren't quite as "bad facts" as this one.

Materials for the podcast are available at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-04-25_Employee.pdf .

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

The Tax Court recently decided a pair of cases related to the innocent spouse provisions of §6015 and time limits on filing for relief.  In the case of Mannella v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 10 the Tax Court held that even if the notice of intent to levy and rights under the innocent spouse provisions were never seen by the taxpayer, the two year period for relief under §6015(b) and (c) that is specifically imposed by statute begin to run.

However, the Court held in this case and the earlier case of Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 8 that the IRS regulation that imposed a similar two year time limit on equitable relief under §6015(f) was invalid, thus allowing the taxpayers to move forward with a claim for equitable relief.

The materials for this podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-04-19_6015.pdf .

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .