§3512 — Treatment of certain persons as employers with respect to motion picture projects
13 cases·2 followed·1 distinguished·10 cited—15% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §3512
For purposes of sections 3121(a)(1) and 3306(b)(1), remuneration paid to a motion picture project worker by a motion picture project employer during a calendar year shall be treated as remuneration paid with respect to employment of such worker by such employer during the calendar year. The identity of such employer for such purposes shall be determined as set forth in this section and without regard to the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.
For purposes of this section—
The term “motion picture project employer” means any person if—
such person (directly or through affiliates)—
is a party to a written contract covering the services of motion picture project workers with respect to motion picture projects in the course of a client’s trade or business,
is contractually obligated to pay remuneration to the motion picture project workers without regard to payment or reimbursement by any other person,
controls the payment (within the meaning of section 3401(d)(1)) of remuneration to the motion picture project workers and pays such remuneration from its own account or accounts,
is a signatory to one or more collective bargaining agreements with a labor organization (as defined in
29 U.S.C. 152(5)
) that represents motion picture project workers, and
has treated substantially all motion picture project workers that such person pays as employees and not as independent contractors during such calendar year for purposes of determining employment taxes under this subtitle, and
at least 80 percent of all remuneration (to which section 3121 applies) paid by such person in such calendar year is paid to motion picture project workers.
The term “motion picture project worker” means any individual who provides services on motion picture projects for clients who are not affiliated with the motion picture project employer.
The term “motion picture project” means the production of any property described in section 168(f)(3). Such term does not include property with respect to which records are required to be maintained under section 2257 of title 18, United States Code.
A person shall be treated as an affiliate of, or affiliated with, another person if such persons are treated as a single employer under subsection (b) or (c) of section 414.
13 Citing Cases
3512 . Relying on this provision, petitioner argues that, because the regulations and instructions to which he would have referred had he filed tax returns did not contain OMB numbers, he cannot be penalized for failure to file . A number of courts have addressed petitioner's argument and have held that the PRA does not apply to 2 Petitioners spend a good deal of their brief arguing why they disagree with the Court statements made by a different Judge of this Court in an earlier hearing in their
section 3512 (2006) . Petitioner requested that all additions and interest be abated . Appeals Officer Thomas Anderson (AO Anderson) was assigned petitioner's collection case . AO Anderson mailed a letter to petitioner to schedule a telephone conference . AO Anderson declined to offer petitioner a face-to-face hearing because petitioner raised only
3512 should alter the manner in which we view arguments based on the PRA. See Pate v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2007-132 . - 10 - alleged failure to comply with the PRA may bar the assessment and collection of Federal income tax ) ; Aldrich v . Commissioner, T .C. Memo . 1993 -290 ; McDougall v . Commissioner, T.C . Memo . 1992-683, affd .
3512 since the inception of the PRA in 1980 ; the 1995 amendments clarified the time and manner in which a 44 U.S .C . sec . 3512 defense could be asserted, and made other clarifying changes, but did not fundamentally alter the scope or purposes of this provision . See H . Conf . Rept . 104-99 at 36 (1995), reprinted at 1995 U .S .C .C .A .N.
The Petitioner is not liable for a penalty at 2 6 U.S .C . § 6651(a)(2) in the amount of $529 .07 for tax year 2003, pursuant to 44 U .S .C. § 3512 . 123 . The Petitioner is not liable for a penalty at 2 6 U .S .C . § 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $2,164 .37 for tax year 2003, pursuant to 44 U .S .C . § 3512 . 124 . The Petitioner is no
§ 3512 ." - 5 - did not assign any error as required by Rule 34(b)(4)5 to respondent's determinations that petitioner received income from a retirement distribution,6 interest, or dividends during 2003 .' With respect to the additions to tax respondent determined , petitioner prayed in his petition that this Court find that "The Petitioner is not
§ 3512.” Rule 34(b)(4) provides that a petition shall contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges that the Commissioner made in the determination of the deficiency. Rule 34(b)(4) further provides that “Any issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded.” In his pretrial mem
The deportment of the Judge in this hearing surely violated the Maxim of Jurisprudence noted in CIV § 3512, which states, "One must not change his purpose to the injury of another." Finally, Mr.