N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL R OSENFELD, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL R EVENUE, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-73362

Ta x C t. No. 012373-07 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt Subm itte d July

9, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ENAVIDES, *** B Y B EE, a n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l R ose nfe ld a

ppe a ls the tax c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t he wa s lia

ble for a t a x de fic ie nc y

of $2,609 for ta

x y e ar 2003. The tax c ourt he ld tha t, a fte r 

# FIL ED AUG 08 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Fortuna

to P. B e nav ide s, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Fifth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.working for theB ritish C onsula te Ge ne ra l (“ B C G” ) in 2003, Ro se n fe ld ove rc o ntribute d a

portion of his B C G inc o m e to a sim plifie d e m

ploy e e pe nsion pla n (“ SEP” ), and the n im

prope rly de duc te d tha

t c o ntribution on his 2003 ta x re turn. The c ourt found tha t, a s a c om m o n la w e m ploy e e of the B C G, R ose nfe ld wa s not a n “ e m ploy e r” unde r § 401(c )(4) of the Inte rna l R e ve nue C ode with re spe c t to his B C G e a

rnings, whic h ba

rre d him from c ontributing to a

n SEP a nd de duc ting c ontributions ba se d on those e arnings. W e a ffirm the tax c ourt’ s judgm e nt. The tax c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t R ose nfe l d wa s a

c o m m on la we m p loy e e of the B C G “ involve s a

m i xe d que stion of la

w a nd fa c t tha

t is pre dom ina

ntly one of fa c t whic h this c ourt re vie w s for c le ar e rror.” C hin v
. Unite d State

s , 57 F.3d 722, 725 (9th C ir. 1995). Ta king into a c c ount “ a ll of the inc ide n ts” of R ose nfe ld’ s e m ploy m e nt re lationship, N

ationw ideMut. Ins. C

o. v . Darde n , 503 U.S. 318, 324 (1992), we c onc lude tha

t the taxc ourt did not c le arly e rr in holding tha

t R ose nfe ld wa s a c om m on la w e m ploy e e of the B C G in light of c e rta in fre que n tly c onside re d c rite ria , se e id. a t 323–24 (identify ing non-e xha u stive list of c rite ria ); Prof’l & Ex e c . Le asing, Inc . v . C

omm’r , 862 F.2d 751, 753 (9th C ir. 1988) (sa m e ). Of pa rtic u la r im porta nc e , we find no c le ar e rror in the c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t R ose nfe l d’ s le tte r of a

ppointm e nt showe d tha

t the B C G ha d the right to e xe rc ise 2c ontrol ove r R o s e nfe l d’ s work. Se e C hin , 57 F.3d a

t 725 (de s c ribing “ right to c ontrol” a s “ the funda

m e nta l te st in distinguishing e m ploy e e s from

inde pe nde nt c ontra c tors” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). Nor do we find c le ar e rror in the c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha

t the le tte r of a

ppointm e nt fa i le d to indic ate that the B C G inte nde d to hire R ose nfe ld a s a n inde pe nde nt c ontra c tor. W ith re spe c t to whe the r R ose nfe l d, a s a c om m on la w e m ploy e e of the B C G, still c ould ha

ve c ontribute d to a

n SEP ba se d on his B C G e arnings, we re vie w the tax c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theInte rna l R e ve nue C ode de novo. Ac a r v . C omm’r , 545 F.3d 727, 731–32 (9th C i r. 2008). B e c a use he did not own a

ny inte re st in the B C G , R o se nfe ld wa s not a n “ e m ploy e r” unde r I.R .C . § 401(c )(4) with re spe c t to his B C G e arnings, thus le aving him ine ligible to c ontributeto a n SEP a nd de duc t c ontributions ba se d on thosee arnings. S e e I.R . C . §§ 404(a ), (h), 408(k)(2), (7). The C ode is una

m biguous on this issue , a

nd we the re fore ne e d not re a c h R ose nfe l d’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t Tre a sury

re gula tions a nd re ve nue rulings supporting the tax c ourt’ s inte rpre tation a re inva lid. Se e Me tro Le asing &De v . C orp. v . C o mm’r , 376 F.3d 1015, 1024 (9th C ir. 2004). AFFIRM E D.

3