17. Plaintiff did not set or in any way control the working hours of the consultants.
18. The consultants were not required to perform services, as representatives of the plaintiff, on a full time basis, while they were acting in an advisory capacity at the various foreign steel mills.
19. The consultants under contract to the plaintiff, each and every one of them, were independent consultants and not employees within the purview of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
20. All of the consultants hired by the plaintiff during the period in question were professionally skilled people.
The Court enters the following additional Conclusions of Law:
1. The twenty consultants in question each were independent contractors and not employees of the American Consulting Corporation within the purview of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
2. Because the consultants were independent contractors and not employees, American Consulting Corporation was not required to withhold F.I.C.A. taxes from the salary payments made to the consultants.
3. The Internal Revenue Service wrongfully assessed liability against the American Consulting Corporation for F.I.C.A. taxes on monies paid to the consultants during the period from January 1, 1961 up to and including December 31, 1964.
4. The Internal Revenue Service wrongfully levied on the funds of American Consulting Corporation on deposit at the Pittsburgh National Bank.
5. The Internal Revenue Service wrongfully disallowed the claim of American Consulting Corporation filed on or about April 15, 1968 for refund in the amount of $8,224.46.
6. The Internal Revenue Service should remit to the American Consulting Corporation the sum of $8,224.46, together with interest at the rate of 6% from February 6, 1967.
7. The Internal Revenue Service wrongfully disallowed the claim for refund in the amount of $348.00 filed by plaintiff.
8. The Internal Revenue Service should remit to the American Consulting Corporation the sum of $348.00, together with interest at the rate of 6% from April 17, 1967.
In essence, plaintiff was a finder or employment agent who brought together American steel consultants seeking work abroad and the managements of foreign mills seeking their technical assistance. Once having made such arrangements, plaintiff's remaining service was to facilitate the transfer of the steel consultants abroad and to smooth their working relationship there. But, not being their employer, plaintiff had no obligation to pay social security taxes on their behalf.
An appropriate Order is entered in accordance with the foregoing Opinion.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.