Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/323820.opn.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
Full Text
1,788 charsmade to Drs. Loretta and Louise were reported as miscellaneous income on Internal
I
1
Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1099s. 2 She concluded Drs. Loretta and Louise were
employees of the dental practice and unemployment insurance taxes should have been
paid. The Department issued Dr. Armand an order and notice of assessment requiring
.~
him to pay $1,896.37 in back taxes, penalties, and interest. Dr. Armand first
administratively appealed.
At the administrative hearing, Dr. Armand testified the association agreements
were no longer valid as the three dentists had orally entered into a partnership. He
stated Drs. Loretta and Louise receive 40 percent of their production, their share of the
dental practice's profits. The remaining 60 percent of production is applied to overhead.
Dr. Armand then took home what was left after overhead was paid, which he claimed
was about 40 percent of his production.
2 In 2013, the dental practice formed and registered a professional limited
liability company (PLLC).
3
,4
i
I
No. 32382-0-111
DeFelice v. Emp't Sec. Dep't
The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded Drs. Loretta and Louise were
employees of the dental practice and affirmed. Dr. Armand petitioned the Department's
commissioner for review of the ALJ's decision; the commissioner adopted the ALJ's
findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed the ALJ. Dr. Armand sought
superior court review. The superior court affirmed, finding substantial evidence
supported the commissioner's decision. Dr. Armand appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the Department's commissioner erred in deciding Dr.
Loretta and Dr. Louise were "in employment" under Washington's Employment Security