Ezel / IRS Rulings / 1106015
Chief Counsel Advice 1106015 Released February 11, 2011 Advice

CCA 1106015: Municipal attorneys remain employees of their law firm

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2011, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2011
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel advice addressed a law firm that assigned one of its attorneys to provide legal services to small municipalities. The firm invoiced and was paid by the municipality, while the attorney was paid by the firm. The advice concluded that the attorney was not an employee of the municipality for purposes of the services provided there.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Is an attorney supplied by a law firm to a small municipality an employee of the municipality or of the law firm?
  • Outcome: Advice given, the attorney was not an employee of the municipality.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 3121.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2011011212194270 Number: 201106015
Release Date: 2/11/2011
Office: ----------------------------
UILC: 3121.04-03

From: ----------------------
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:19:43 PM
To: -------------------------
Cc: --------------------------------------------------
Subject: Law firms whose attorneys perform services as city attorneys and judges for small
municipalities

As I understand the facts:

The law firm provides one of its attorneys to perform legal services for a municipality. It's usually the
same attorney every time. The firm sends an invoice to the municipality, and the municipality pays the
firm. The municipality does not issue a Form 1099. The attorney is paid by the law firm. Small
municipalities essentially contract out for these services when they can't afford their own full time city
attorney.

The question is whether the IRS should assert that the attorney is an employee of the municipality, rather
than an employee (or partner) of the law firm for purposes of the services provided to the municipality.

My answer is no. The attorney is not an employee of the municipality.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2011, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.