Masonry Magazine August 1970 Page. 28
IMI Promotion Trust
(Continued from page 5).
ucts. We must meet this competition and do a topnotch job of informing architects, engineers, mortgage lenders, and the general public about the advantages of masonry construction. The IMI Promotion Trust will allow us to do this throughout the United States and Canada," the Memphis masonry contractor said.
BM&PIU President Murphy lauded the efforts of MCAA in establishing the fund. "The things we will undertake through the IMI Promotion Fund," he said, "will be even stronger because they will represent the joint efforts of labor and management. I appreciate the enthusiasm and forward thinking that the MCAA members have shown in arranging this agreement."
The funds will be administered by five trustees appointed by MCAA. The original five trustees are: Donald R. Bidwell, Detroit; Eugene George, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada; George Miller, Chicago; David Soloff Jr., Chattanooga, and Charles Velardo, Boston. All are mason contractors except Mr. Miller who is executive Vice President of MCAA.
Union representatives are prohibited by law from acting as trustees of such promotion funds. However, the members of the BM&PIU executive board and the research director will act as advisors to the trust fund. They are: President Murphy, Secretary William R. Conners, First Vice President George W. King, Treasurer John T. Joyce, and Research Director James Richardson.
Advertisers Index...
LET THEM KNOW YOU SAW IT IN MASONRY
Anchor Manufacturing Co. A 26
Arco Felker Corporation 21
Bluff City Manufacturing Co. B 29
Dur-O-wal National, Inc. D 24
Essick Manufacturing Co., Div. of A-T-C Inc. Back Cover
Robert G. Evans Co. (Target) F 12
Felker Mfg. Co. (See Avco Felker Corp.) G
Giant Industries 27
Lull Engineering Co. L 6
Massey Ferguson, Inc. M 9
Morgen Manufacturing Co. 22
New England Carbide Tool Co., Inc. N 24
Ohio Lime Company O 27
Oury Engineering Co., Div. of Harsco Corp. 2nd Cover
Prime-Mover Co., Div. of Hon Industries 23
Thomsen Div, Royal Industries T 4
Zonolite Div., W. R. Grace & Co. Z 11
This index is published as a convenience to the reader. Every care is taken to make it accurate but masonry assumes no responsibilities for errors or omissions.
Taxes
(Continued from page 19)
TAX COURT
A taxpayer, who completely struck out in his case before the Tax Court, was told, among other things, that when there exists a "reasonable prospect of recovery." no deduction would be allowed for a casualty loss. During the tax year, a factory building constructed by the taxpayer was severely damaged by snow and windstorm. Although the building was covered by insurance, the insurance carriers denied liability under the policies. Because the taxpayer had filed suit against the insurance company and the case was pending, the Tax Court found that he was not entitled to deduct the amount of the casualty loss during that tax year on the ground that the taxpayer had a "reasonable prospect of recovery."
Then, the Tax Court said that the taxpayer should have paid self-employment taxes when he was chief technical consultant for a corporation. The taxpayer argued that he was an employee of the corporation. Not so, said the court. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a person employed as a consultant will be considered an independent contractor and liable for the payment of the self-employment tax.
Finally, the court determined that since the taxpayer was on a cash basis he must include in 1963 income, advance payments received by him during 1963-although the work was to be performed in 1964. The taxpayer received a $600 check on December 30, 1963 as compensation for work to be performed during January 1964. The advance payment should be included in 1963 income-the year in which it was received. Granger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1970-155.
EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE
The IRS has announced that employers MUST NOT withhold Federal income tax from employees who have submitted exemption certificates, Forms W-4E, claiming exemption from Federal income tax withholding.
The IRS pointed out that due to an apparent misunderstanding some employers have not granted exemption from withholding to employees who furnished the appropriate certificates. However, the new IRS regulations clearly indicate that an employer had no choice and he must not withhold Federal income tax from an employee who has submitted an exemption certificate.
EXTENSIONS AND PENALTIES
Extensions of time for filing a return are granted if the taxpayer files a timely application which establishes that he is unable to file his return by the due date because of circumstances beyond his control. Of course, interest as opposed to penalty, continues to be charged at a 6% rate from the original due date of the return.
However, the IRS has now announced that if it is found upon audit that the facts contained in an application were not supportable, the taxpayer will have to show that he had reasonable cause for failure to pay the tax on the original due date of the return in order to avoid the penalty. T.I.R. No. 1034.
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
The Commissioner has acquiesced, thus giving more weight, in the decision of the Tax Court that held that a taxpayer who pays the major portion of the cost of a parent's room and board in a home for the aged may compute his federal income tax using head of household rates. John Robinson v. U.S., 51 T.C. 520.