And herein lies the issue. It's ALL about interpretation. As the above states, an "employee" or "associate in a professional firm or corporation" are exempt.
Permitting any person to share in the fees for professional services, other than: a partner, employee, associate in a professional firm or corporation, professional subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice medicine, or a legally authorized trainee practicing under the supervision of a licensee.
One entity cannot be all of those things,
My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part does not modify in any way the partner, employee, [or] associate in a professional firm or corporation parts.
Linda, can you clarify how you are interpreting that legal clause for me. That is all I want. I'm not intending to argue one side or the other.My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part is tied only to the professional subcontractor or consultant part - as that entire phrase is bounded by commas: the entity known as a [professional subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice medicine] - as distinguished from the other entities described in the list.My reading is that the authorized to practice medicine part does not modify in any way the partner, employee, [or] associate in a professional firm or corporation parts.QUESTION: I assume you have an EIN from the IRS?? If you do, and for those who do, are you and they not considered professional firms?Also - the share in phrase throws me. In legal language, that phrase is usually used separately and distinctly from the term earned. As in, the earnings from all 5 partners are thrown into the pot and each partner receives a share of the total (shares in), based on some predetermined formula. In such a situation, the partner's compensation is based on something other than what he actually earned.QUESTION: In legal language, and based on the example I gave, earnings are quite often distinguished from shares in or sharing in. Do you know for certain that this distinction does not hold in the legal language you have quoted here?Again, just looking for clarification - not an argument. I know you are not a lawyer, so I understand that you may not know for certain.
I'm MORE than happy to gain the business of the billing companies with little to no regard for there potential clients legal liabilities.