Failure to comply with this section makes the employing unit directly liable for the contributions and interest and the department has the remedies of collection against the employing unit under this chapter as though the services in question were performed directly for the employing unit. It argues that all of the business affairs of Citikon were performed by independent contractors. Petitioner and Citifor formed Citikon, a joint venture. The law of partnerships is applicable in determining the organizational nature of Citikon, since a joint venture is very similar to a partnership. No Alaska authority in support of this assertion could be found.
Some jurisdictions hold that a partnership is a separate entity.
Others hold it is an aggregation of its members. 59 Am Jur 2d, Partnership 6. In determining whether a partnership is to be viewed as a separate entity or an aggregation of members, the courts look at the purposes to be served. The Scoggins court, quoting from Pasler v. Maryland Cas. This leads to the heart of petitioner's claim that Citikon has no employees.