TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Thomas N. Thurlow & Associates, P.C.
Docket Number: 28335-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/19/2010
Pages: 20

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 THOMAS N . THURLOW AND ASSOCIATES, P .C ., Petitioner, v . Docket No . 28335-08 . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b)', Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge David Gustafson at Houston, Texas,,on December 9, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered entered under Rule 155 . (Signed) David Gustafson Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 19, 2010 SERVED MAR 19 2010 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson 2 THOMAS N . THURLOW & ASSOCIATES, P .C . 3 Docket No . 28335-08 December 9, 200 9 4 The Court has decided to render oral Findings 5 of Fact and Opinion in this case, and the followin g 6 represents the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion . 7 The oral Findings of Fact and Opinion shall not be relied 8 on as precedent in any other case . 9 This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the 10 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Interna l 11 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 12 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 In a Notice of Determination of Worke r 14 Classification (notice of determination) under section 15 7436, respondent determined that ten workers wer e 16 employees of petitioner during 2003 and that petitioner 17 was liable for employment taxes and related additions and 18 penalties -- i .e . : 19 Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) 20 taxes, income tax withholding, the addition to tax under 21 section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file its employment tax 22 return when due ;the addition to tax unde r 23 section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay its employment 24 taxes when due ; the penalty under section 6656 fo r 25 failure to deposit its employment taxes when due ; and the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 . 2 In a "Stipulation of Settled Issues" filed October 22, 3 2009, Respondent conceded that four of the ten worker s 4 were not employees (paras . 8-14) ; and petitioner conceded 5 that the other six workers were employees (paras . 1-6) . 6 Because the parties have also now agreed on the amounts 7 of FICA tax and withholding that is due from petitioner 8 for those six employees (Stip . 29), the remaining issues 9 are petitioner's liability for the additions an d 10 penalties and the amounts of any additions and penalties 11 for which petitioner is held to be liable . 12 At the trial of this case on December 8 , 13 2009, in Houston, Texas, the Court admitted into evidence 14 the parties' "Stipulation of Facts", with attache d 15 Exhibits 1-J through 14-J . The Court also admitte d 16 Exhibits 15-P, 16-R, 17-R, and 18-R . Petitioner's only 17 witness was Thomas Thurlow ; that is, petitioner did not 18 call as witnesses any of the workers, nor its attorneys 19 who supervised them in Denver, nor the attorneys with 20 whom it shared space in Denver, nor its accountant who 21 prepared its tax returns . Respondent's only witness was 22 IRS employment tax agent Cheryl Davis . 23 FINDINGS OF FAC T 24 Petitioner Thomas N . Thurlow & Associates, 25 P .C ., is a law firm in Houston, Texas, whose President Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 and principal attorney, Thomas Thurlow, has practiced la w 2 in Colorado for 50 years (Stip . 7) . In this opinion the 3 law firm is referred to as "petitioner" and its founder 4 is referred to as "Mr, . Thurlow" . Petitioner was founded 5 in 1981 (Stip . 2) and, since that time, has regularly and 6 timely withheld and paid employment taxes and has file d 7 employment tax returns . The year 2003 was an exception . 8 Petitioner's work chiefly concerns persona l 9 injury claims . In 20Q2 petitioner opened a second office 10 near Denver, Colorado, in the hope of developing "Fen- 11 phen" cases . Mr . Thurlow never visited the Denve r 12 office . Rather, it was run by two other attorneys in the 13 firm . Petitioner rented office space that it shared with 14 two other firms--a solo practitioner named Tony Martinez, 15 and a small firm named~Irwin & Boesen--both of whic h 16 firms were pursuing similar Fen-phen work . Petitioner's 17 Denver operation was never successful, and it shut down 18 soon after 2003 . 19 In 2003 petitioner's Denver office employed 20 four workers (i .e ., Jacob Friedberg, Jennifer Leone , 21 Julia Wathen, and Leonard Velor) out of the six workers 22 whom petitioner has now conceded were employees . 23 However, at the time, petitioner treated them a s 24 independent contractors and did not withhold or pay 25 employment taxes for them . These four employees worked Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 for petitioner only part-time, had compensation in 2003 2 totaling $3,972, $2,216, $1,172, and $206 (Exs . 8-11), 3 and worked for multiple employers that year . Thes e 4 workers helped to sign up potential Fen-phen clients and 5 secure their medical records for petitioner (Stip 13-16) . 6 Petitioner's Houston office employed two of 7 the workers whom petitioner now concedes were employees, -8 but at the time it treated them not as employees but as 9 independent contractors . Those two Houston employee s 10 were William Rankel, who was paid in 2003 a total of 11 $17,944 (Ex . 12-R) to .provide computer support fo r 12 petitioner (Stip . 17), and Christina Thurlow, a niece of 13 Mr . Thurlow's who was paid in 2003 a total of $14,320 to 14 serve as a receptionist and perform web design services 15 (Stip . 12) . 16 The record does not show that petitioner 17 obtained from an accountant or a tax lawyer any expert 18 advice about how these'workers should be classified . 19 Apart from the descriptions given above, the record does 20 not include any detailed information about the extent to 21 which any of these six employees did or did not have any 22 of the characteristics ;of a common-law employee (se e 23 Rev . Rul . 87-41, 1987-1 C .B . 296), but only Mr . Thurlow's 24 cursory and general assertion that their work was no t 25 closely supervised . However, it should be noted that Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 petitioner did not simply fail to report thei r 2 compensation . Rather, consistent with its then-position 3 that the workers were independent contractors, petitioner 4 did issue Forms 1099 to the workers and did report their 5 compensation to the IRS . (Ex . 6-J, pp . 20-23 . ) 6 Petitioner was required to file employment 7 tax returns for every calendar quarter, not only for 8 these six employees but for all of its employees . It 9 filed a timely return for the first quarter, showing 10 taxes as due and as having been deposited in the amount 11 of $54,373 . (Ex . 13-J, Stip . 31-42 .) It filed a timely 12 return for the third quarter, showing taxes as due and as 13 having been deposited in the amount of $27,115 . 14 (Ex . 14-J ; Stip . 33-34) . However, the return for its 15 second quarter, though due July 31, 2003, was not filed 16 until November 3, 2003, showing taxes as due and as 17 having been deposited in the amount of $9,753 . 18 (Ex . 16-R .) The return for the fourth quarter was even 19 later : Though due January 31, 2004, it was not submitted 20 to the IRS until December 13, 2004, showing taxes as due 21 and as having been deposited in the amount of $29,721 . 22 (Ex . 18-R .) By that time the IRS had already begun an 23 employment audit, in connection with which it ha d 24 prepared a substitute for return for that quarter 25, (Ex . 17-R), so the IRS did not accept petitioner's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 return . 2 The record does not show any error in 3 petitioner's employment tax returns as eventually 4 submitted, nor any underpayment of petitioner' s 5 employment taxes as eventually deposited, other than FICA 6 tax and income tax withholding for the six employee s 7 discussed in this opinion . The parties have stipulated 8 that the FICA tax due for those six employees totale d 9 $1,523 .50 for each quarter (i .e ., an annual total o f 10 $6,094 in FICA tax), and that the income tax withholding 11 due totaled $2,688 .53 'for each quarter (i .e ., an annual 12 total of $10,754 .12 in income tax withholding), for a 13 grand total of $16,848'.12 in unpaid employment taxes for 14 2003 . 15 The year 2003 was not a good year financiall y 16 for petitioner . On its Form 11205 tax return (Ex . 1), 17 petitioner reported gross receipts of just ove r 18 $2 million but a loss of $88,622 . Mr . Thurlow testified 19 to the effect that financial hardship existed to justify 20 petitioner's late- and1non-payment of its employmen t 21 taxes . However, Mr . Th a urlow testified that petitione r 22 did borrow money to pay ; its bills, and petitioner offered 23 into evidence no bank statements, balance sheets, o r 24 other financial records'to show petitioner's precise 25 condition . We find that petitioner did not show Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 financial hardship to an extent that rendered it unable 2 to-timely pay its employment taxes . 3 OPINION 4 I . Burden of'Production and Burden of Proof 5 Respondent has "the burden of production 6 * * * for any penalty, addition to tax, or additional 7 amount imposed by" the Internal Revenue Code . 8 Section 7491(c) . Once respondent meets that burden, th e 9 taxpayer generally bears the burden of proving that the 10 determination is in error, and absent such proof th e 11 Commissioner's determination is generally presume d 12 correct . Rule 142(a) ;, Welch v . Helvering , 290 U .S . 111, 13 115 (1933) . Section 7491(a)(1) may shift the burden of 14 proof in some circumstances . However, where th e 15 petitioner is a corporation (as here), section 7491(c)(2) 16 provides that the shift occurs only if the corporation 17 meets a net worth requirement, se e 18 section 7480(c)(4)(A)(ii) (incorporating the requirement s 19 of 28 U .S .C . section 2412(d)(2)(B)), and petitioner put 20 on no evidence of its net worth and did not argue that 21 the burden of proof had shifted . 22 II . Additions and Penaltie s 23 A . Failure to file under section 6651(a)(1) 24 Section 6651(a)(1) authorizes the imposition 25 of an addition to tax for failure to file a timely return Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 0 1 unless the taxpayer proves that such failure is due t o 2 reasonable cause and is not due to willful neglect . Sec . 3 6651(a)(1) ; see United States v . 4 Boyle , 469 U .S . 241, 245 (1985) . Respondent contends 5 that petitioner is liable for this addition for the 6 second and fourth quarters of 2003, and respondent met 7 his burden of production by showing that the second- 8 quarter return was filed November 3, 2003 (see Ex . 16-R), 9 and that the fourth-quarter return was submitte d 10 December 13, 2004 (see, Ex . 18-R) . Petitioner did not 11 present any contrary evidence, so we find that th e 12 returns were submitted untimely on those dates . 13 Petitioner contends that its failure was "due 14 to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . The 15 Internal Revenue Code does not define either "willfu l 16 neglect" or "reasonable cause" . To prove reasonabl e 17 cause, the taxpayer must show that he exercised ordinar y 18 business care and prudence but nevertheless could no t 19 file the return when it was due . See Crocker v . 20 Commissioner , 92 T .C . 8,99, 913 (1989) ; 26 C .F .R . sec . 21 301 .6651-1(c)(1) . The Supreme Court explained : O To 22 escape an addition under section 6651, the taxpayer must 23 prove "both (1) that the failure did not result from 24 'willful neglect,' and (2) that the failure was 'due to 25 reasonable cause'", United States v . Boyle , 469 U .S . 241 , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 245 (1985) (quoting section 6651(a)(1)) ; and (ii) that 2 "as used here,,the term 'willful neglect' may be read as 3 meaning a conscious, intentional failure or reckles s 4 indifference", id . 5 Petitioner has the burden of proof on those 6 contentions, and it did not sustain that burden . 7 Petitioner well knew the requirement for filing quarterly 8 employment tax returns since it had complied with tha t 9 requirement for yearsL Petitioner offered no real 10 explanation for its late filing of these two returns . 11 There is no obvious reason why its financial difficultie s 12 would have affected its filing of its returns, and 13 petitioner's only witness did not justify the late filing 14 with such a contention . We find that petitioner had no 15 reasonable cause for filing its second- and fourth- t t 16 quarter returns late and that it is liable for the 17 addition under section~6651(a)(1) . 18 B . Failure,to pay under section 6651(a)(2 ) 19 Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to ta x 20 for failure to pay the amount of tax shown on a return, 21 and respondent contends that petitioner is liable fo r 22 that addition for the second and fourth quarters of 2003 . 23 The record does not show any failure to timely deposit 24 employment taxes for those workers whom petitione r 25 consistently treated as'.employees in 2003 .and whose wage s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 12 1 it eventually reported on Forms 941 . Respondent assert s 2 this addition only as to the tax due on the six workers 3 at issue here, and respondent does not assert th e 4 addition as to the tax that petitioner deposited for its 5 other employees--the tax that was shown on the return s 6 that petitioner did submit . 7 The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2 ) i 8 applies only when an amount of tax is shown on a return, 9 Cabirac v . Commissioner , 120 T .C . 163, 170 (2003), and 10 respondent has the burden of production to show the 11 filing of a return, i :e ., to show an "amount shown as tax 12 on [a] return" . Apparently borrowing different language 13 from the section 6651(a)(3) addition that is not at issue 14 here, respondent mischaracterizes the section 6651(a)(2) 15 addition in its pretrial memorandum (at 5) by stating 16 that section 6651(a)(2) imposes a penalty as a percentage 17 "of the tax liability required to be shown on the return, 18 for failure to pay any' tax owned [presumably meanin g 19 "owed"] by the applicable due date" . By thi s 20 characterization, respondent misses the distinc t 21 requirement of section 6651(a)(2) that the additio n 22 applies only as to tax,"shown" on a return . As to such a 23 showing, respondent fails to meet its burden of goin g 24 forward . 25 The returns that petitioner submitted Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 3 1 obviously do not show the amounts of tax now at issue . 2 And respondent's substitute for return for the fourth 3 quarter of 2003 (Ex . h17-R) does not qualify unde r 4 section 6020(b) and is therefore not a predicate for the 5 failure-to-pay addition . It is true that a return mad e 6 by the Secretary under section 6020(b) is treated as "the 7 return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of determinin g 8 the amount of the addition" under section 6651(a)(2) . 9 See sec . 6651(g)(2) . However, the return must satisf y 10 the requirements of section 6020(b) . A "dummy return", 11 i .e ., page 1 showing only the taxpayer's name, address, 12 and Social Security number, is not a section 6020(b ) 13 return ; an unsubscribed return does not meet th e 14 requirements of section 6020(b) . See Wheeler v . 15 Commissioner , 127 T .C .i200, 208-209 (2006) . The 16 substitute for return does not show any amount due, so i t 17 cannot be the basis of'an addition unde r 18 section 6651(a)(2) . We find that petitioner is not 19 liable for this addition . 20 C . Failure'to deposit under section 665 6 21 Section 6656 imposes a penalty in the amount 22 of an "applicable percentage" of the portion of a n 23 underpayment in employment tax that is required to b e 24 deposited if the failure to deposit is more than 15 days, 25 and respondent asserts'that penalty for all four quarters Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 14 1 of 2003 . Petitioner does not dispute that its employment 2 taxes were required to be deposited quarterly . Because 3 it did not treat as employees the six workers at issue 4 here, petitioner admits it did not include, in it s 5 employment tax deposits, amounts sufficient to pay the 6 employment taxes for those six employees . Consequently , 7 respondent has met its burden of production on the issu e 8 of the section 6656 penalty on the employment tax fo r 9 these six workers . 10 However, a taxpayer may avoid the penalty 11 under section 6656 ifiits failure to deposit was due to 12 reasonable cause and not willful neglect . Charlotte's 13 Office Boutique, Inc . v . Commissioner , 121 T .C . 89, 109 14 (2003), affd . 425 F .3d 1203 (9th Cir . 2005) . But again, 15 petitioner has not shown reasonable cause . No financial 16 information was given to show financial hardship a s 17 reasonable cause . The, reason that petitioner did not 18 make the deposits for these six workers was that it 19 wrongly treated them as independent contractors, bu t 20 petitioner did not show that it had been advised by a tax 21 professional to so characterize them . Cf . Neonatology 22 Associates, P .A . v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 43, 99 (2000), 23 affd . 299 F .3d 221 (3d Cir . 2002) (reasonable caus e 24 exists where a taxpayer relies in good faith on the 25 advice of a qualified tax adviser and the taxpayer Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 5 1 provided the adviser with all necessary and accurat e 2 information) . Petitioner did not show even that its non- 3 tax lawyers had made a good-faith effort to study th e 4 distinction between an employee and an independent, 5 contractor and had made a misjudgment . We find tha t 6 petitioner had no reasonable cause for depositing late 7 the employment tax for these six employees, and that i t is liable for the failure-to-deposit penalty unde r 9 section 6656 . 1 0 11 D . Accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 Section 6662 provides for the imposition of a 4 12 penalty equal to 20 percent of the portion of an 13 underpayment which is attributable to negligence or 14 disregard of the rules: or regulations, and respondent 15 asserts the negligence penalty as to all of th e 16 underpayment at issue here . For purposes of section 17 6662, the term "negligence" includes a failure t o 18 exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation 19 of a tax return . 26 C .F .R . sec . 1 .6662-3(b)(1) . 20 Negligence is defined as a lack of due care or failure to 21 do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would 22 do under the circumstances . Neely v . Commissioner , 8 5 23 T .C . 934, 947 (1985) . The term "disregard" includes an y 24 careless, reckless, or intentional disregard of the rule s 25 or regulations . Sec . 6662(c) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 6 1 Respondent asserts the negligence penalt y 2 with respect to the employment taxes for the six workers 3 for all four quarters, of 2003 . Under section 7491(c) , 4 respondent has the initial burden of production to show 5 liability for the negligence penalty . By stipulatio n 6 respondent showed that the taxes were due for these six 7 workers, and petitioner admits that it did not pay the 8 taxes for these workers . However, respondent must also 9 make a showing that petitioner's treatment of thes e 10 workers was not merely incorrect but was in fact 11 negligent ; this is part of respondent's burden o f 12 production . The parties' stipulation that petitioner's 13 treatment of these workers was erroneous does no t 14 establish that that treatment was negligent . This is not 15 a case in which the taxpayer failed to keep records ( a 16 common predicate for a negligence finding) or failed 17 altogether to report to the IRS (another commo n 18 predicate) . On the contrary, the record here includes no 19 substantial information of bad record-keeping by 20 petitioner, and the record shows that petitioner issued 21 Forms 1099 and reported the compensation to the IRS . 22 This is thus not a taxpayer who was guilty of wholesale 23 disregard of the tax law respecting its payment o f 24 compensation, nor is it a taxpayer who attempted to fly 25 under the radar . It is a taxpayer who erred in his Heritage, Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 7 1 reporting and paying of tax . If there is negligence 2 here, it must be in the seriousness and obviousness of 3 the error reflected in petitioner's reporting position . 4 However, in that connection the same lack of evidence 5 that benefits respondent when we consider whethe r 6 petitioner has met its burden of proof to show reasonable 7 cause under sections 6651(a)(1) and (a)(2) and 6656--that 8 lack may now be a disadvantage to respondent, when 9 considering whether it has met its own burden of 10 production to show negligence . 11 The error'of petitioner's position lay in its 12 failure to vindicate the distinction between an employee 13 and an independent contractor, summarized as follows in 14 'Revenue Ruling 87-41 : . 15 [G]enerally the relationship of employer an d 16 employee exists when the person or persons for whom the 17 services are performed have the right to control an d 18 direct the individual who performs the services, not only 19 as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also 20 as to the details and means by which that result i s 21 accomplished . That is, an employee is subject to the 22 will and control of the employer not only as to what 23 shall be done but as to how it shall be done . In this 24 connection, it is not necessary that the employe r 25 actually direct or control the manner in which the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 8 1 services are performed ; it is sufficient if the employe r 2 has the right to do so ./( 3 The parties' stipulation establishes that, by 4 this standard, petitioner's treatment was in error . 5 However, in considering whether the independen t 6 contractor treatment was so obviously wrong that i t 7 amounted to negligence, we find that the workers are not 8 identically situated . ; We find that petitioner's mos t 9 obvious error concerned Mr . Thurlow's niece Christine 10 Thurlow, who (the parties stipulated) served as a 11 "receptionist and graphic designer", with no indication 12 of how her time was allocated between those tw o 13 functions . We take judicial notice of the fact that a 14 receptionist in a typical law firm has a low level of 15 discretion as to how she shall perform her job . He r 16 superiors in the firm ; have the right to tell her what to 17 do, down to the level of telling her precisely what t o 18 say when she answers the telephone . We therefore fin d 19 that the stipulation alone is sufficient to meet 20 respondent's burden of production to show petitioner's 21 negligence in treating Christine Thurlow as a n 22 independent contractor . The burden then shifts t o 23 petitioner to prove that it was not obvious that she wa s 24 an employee, and we find that petitioner did not carry 25 that burden . Petitioner's reporting position as t o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 9 1 Christine Thurlow was negligent . 2 The circumstance is different as to the other 3 five employees . According to the stipulation, the fou r 4 Denver employees were "signing up clients, securing 5 medical records and providing other services" (Stip . 13- 6 16), and the record includes no further information about 7 the manner in which they were supervised or directed . 8 Furthermore, their compensation was so . modest (ranging 9 from $3,972 down to $206) that it suggests an ad hoc 10 character to their work . One can imagine scenarios i n 11 which workers perform such tasks as employees and other 12 scenarios in which workers perform such tasks a s 13 independent contractors . Respondent had the burden of 14 producing evidence to . show that their employee status is 15 so obvious that treating them as independent contractors 16 was negligent, but we'find that respondent did not meet 17 that burden . 18 In the Houston office the sixth worker a t 19 issue--William Rankel--"performed information technology 20 (IT or computer support) services" . Again, the record 21 includes no further information about the manner in which 22 he was supervised or directed . One can imagine scenarios 23 in which an IT worker is an employee and other scenarios 24 in which an IT worker is an independent contractor . 25 Respondent had the burden of producing evidence to show Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 2 0 1 that Mr . Rankel's employee status is so obvious tha t 2 treating him as an independent contractor was negligent, 3 but we find that respondent did not meet that burden . 4 The penalty of section 6662(a) does not apply 5 where the taxpayer shows that the understatement was du e 6 to "reasonable cause * * * and that the taxpayer acted i n 7 good faith", sec . 6664(c)(1), and petitioner could avoid 8 the negligence penalty as to the tax attributable t o 9 Christine Thurlow if it could make that showing . But 10 petitioner does not make a showing of reliance in good 11 faith on the advice of a qualified tax adviser (cf . 12 Neonatology Associates , supra ) nor any other showing of 13 reasonable cause . 14 We find that petitioner's treatment of 15 Christine 'urlow as an independent contractor wa s 16 negligent, that petitioner had no reasonable cause for 17 that treatment, and that petitioner therefore owes the 18 accuracy-related penalty of section 6662 on the portion 19 of the underpayment related to Christine A'urlow . 20 However, we find that respondent did not meet its burden 21 of production to show that petitioner's erroneou s 22 treatment of the other five employees at issue wa s 23 negligent, and that petitioner therefore does not owe the 24 accuracy-related penalty on the portion of th e 25 underpayment related to these five employees . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 2 1 1 To give effect to the parties' stipulation s 2 and the foregoing opinion, decision will be entered under 3 Rule 155 . 4 This concludes the Court's oral Findings of 5 Fact and Opinion in this case . 6 (Whereupon, at 9 :23 a .m ., the bench opinion 7 was concluded . ) 8 9 10 11 / / 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 / / 23 24 // 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888