Borak & Borak v. State Tax Commission
Opinion of the Court
During 1960 and 1961, the petitioner was a partnership composed of two partners, both of whom were certified shorthand reporters. The petitioner is in the business of providing reporting services to attorneys in regard to legal proceedings. During I960 and 1961, the petitioner generally employed between two and four reporters each business day to assist the partners in covering assignments. The petitioner also employed an office manager, bookkeeper, office boys, typists and messenger boys.
For the years 1960 and 1961 the petitioner filed New York State partnership returns, but did not compute or pay any unincorporated business tax. In 1965 the respondent issued notices of deficiencies and demanded payment of an unincorporated business tax. A hearing was held before the respondent and this review* is from its decision which determined that the unincorporated business tax was applicable to the partnership in 1960 and 1961.
It is not disputed that in general the practice of the profession of certified shorthand reporter would be exempt from the unincorporated business tax as a profession pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 703 of the Tax Law. However, said subdivision (c) requires that “more than eighty per centum of the unincorporated business gross income for the taxable year is derived from personal services actually rendered by the individual or the members of the partnership The 80% requirement as
The petitioner contends that, inasmuch as the occupation of certified shorthand reporting is a recognized profession for purposes of exemption from the unincorporated business tax, the conduct of such a profession by and through employees is essentially the same as the conduct of the professions of public accountancy or engineering and, therefore, the over-all,-supervision of the business by the individual partners and the contacts with the clients and sole responsibility for the work product, should require that the income derived through employees (nonpartner reporters) be attributed to the partners.
While the record tends to clearly establish that the client relationship and the solicitation of business and arrangements for the reporting is almost exclusively handled by the partners, nevertheless, it is apparent that, unlike the end product involved in engineering and public accountancy, finished transcripts are not certified as to accuracy by the partners but are solely certified in such, respects by the reporter who took such testimony. The finished product in regard to the transcripts, while perhaps imputing a derivative responsibility to the petitioner, is primarily the responsibility solely of the reporter-employee who certifies the accuracy of the transcript.
The determination should be confirmed, and the petition dismissed, without costs.
Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Bane ánd Reynolds, JJ., concur.
Determination confirméd, and petition dismissed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.