@mark-makuch wrote:
I was hoping there was something more concrete for situations when people challenge that as not enough (and they do).
Why not simply inform them that an employer and an employee cannot be the same person (or entity in the case of an employer)? That is clear from the Reg I cited.
Further, Treas. Reg. §31.3401(c)-1 discusses the term "employee" and delineates among other things, the relationship between an employer and an employee. The Reg also states:
"Generally, physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, auctioneers, and others who follow an independent trade, business, or profession, in which they offer their services to the public, are not employees."
In sum, if the individual taxpayer is not an employee, then that taxpayer should not be paid as such and receive a W-2.
