Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,789 chars

majority does)) was registered with the department as a sole proprietor doing business as

Armand V. DeFelice DDS. Administrative Record (AR) at 222. He reported federal

income and other taxes on the same basis. At the outset of the audit, and armed with

three forms 1099 that Dr. Armand had filed with his federal tax return, Ms. Hughes asked

the dental practice's bookkeeper for any written agreements with recipients of the forms

1099. She was provided with association agreements that Drs. Loretta and Louise had

signed with their father upon joining his practice in 1990 and 2004, respectively. She

was also provided with an agreement with a janitorial service that proved to Ms. Hughes'

satisfaction to be an independent contracting relationship. Ms. Hughes admitted that she

never asked, and was never told, whether the association agreements from the practice

files were in effect at the time of her June 2012 audit.

Because Ms. Hughes never considered the possibility that the dentists had begun

operating as a partnership, she spoke only briefly with Dr. Armand, characterizing her

conversation with him as a casual, "[H]ere is what 1 found, this is what is happening, this

is what is next." AR at 112. Dr. Armand agrees that to the best of his recollection, Ms.

Hughes did not ask him any questions. Jd. at 131. Ms. Hughes spoke with only one of

Like the majority, 1 will likewise refer to Dr. Armand's daughters and co-partners
I

as "Dr. Loretta" and "Dr. Louise."
2

DeFelice v. Emp 't Sec. Dep't
No. 32382-0-III- dissent

the women dentists-and so passingly that not only did she make no notes of the

conversation, she couldn't even remember whether she spoke to Dr. Loretta or Dr.