# SSR 89-4c: SSR 89-4c : SECTIONS 202(a), 211, 213, AND 214 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (42 U.S.C. 402(a), 411, 413, AND 414) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME -- TRADE OR BUSINESS -- CONSULTING SERVICES

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_89_4c

## Section

- **Citation:** SSR 89-4c
- **Heading:** SSR 89-4c : SECTIONS 202(a), 211, 213, AND 214 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (42 U.S.C. 402(a), 411, 413, AND 414) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME -- TRADE OR BUSINESS -- CONSULTING SERVICES
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / OASI / Self-Employment / SSR 89-4c

## Text

SSR 89-4c

EFFECTIVE/PUBLICATION DATE: 02/15/89

20 CFR 404.1066

Doshi v. Sec. of HHS, 1A Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 14,045A (N.D.
Ill., E. Div.)

PLUNKETT, District Judge:

Pending are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff
Mansukhlal Doshi ("Doshi") and defendant Dr. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of
Health and Human Services (the "Secretary"). Doshi seeks review of a final
decision of the Secretary denying his application for old-age or
retirement benefits. Doshi seeks reversal of the Secretary's determination
or, alternatively, remand to the Secretary for consideration of new
evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the Secretary's
determination.

Procedural Background

On March 14, 1985, Doshi applied for Retirement Insurance Benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act (Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance.) (R. 56-59). The Secretary denied the application on
May 14, 1985 (R. 60-61) because a claims representative determined that
Doshi was not conducting a bona fide trade or business from 1982 through
1984. Doshi purported to be an investment counselor. The representative
determined that Doshi created his clients and duties for the sole purpose
of providing social security coverage. (Id.) The representative
believed that Doshi and his son (who was Doshi's biggest client) "created
a situation to give the son a write-off and the father quarters of
coverage." (Id.)

Doshi requested reconsideration of the denial of benefits on the grounds
his activities as a consultant was a business covered under the Social
Security Act (R. 62-63). Doshi stated "(1) My business was conducted in
good faith for producing income; (2) there was continuity of operations;
ient) "created
a situation to give the son a write-off and the father quarters of
coverage." (Id.)

Doshi requested reconsideration of the denial of benefits on the grounds
his activities as a consultant was a business covered under the Social
Security Act (R. 62-63). Doshi stated "(1) My business was conducted in
good faith for producing income; (2) there was continuity of operations;
(3) I was regularly conducting the same and am still doing so; (4) I do
and did hold myself out to others as selling my services." (R. 63). On
September 3, 1985, the Secretary denied Doshi's request for
reconsideration on the same grounds as before -- he did not derive income
from a trade or business (R. 65-70). The Secretary also ruled that Doshi's
1981 income, in addition to the years 1982 through 1984, was not derived
from a bona fide trade or business (R. 70).

Doshi requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (R. 26),
which was held on February 13, 1986, in Evanston, Illinois (R. 28-55). At
the hearing before ALJ Dale A. Garwal, Doshi appeared and was represented
by a paralegal from the Prairie State Legal Services Office. (Id.) Doshi testified and submitted numerous documents on his own behalf (R.
31-51; 130-55). On March 28, 1986, the ALJ ruled that Doshi was not
entitled to retirement insurance benefits (R. 13-18). The ALJ concluded
that "the evidence does not establish that the claimant did conduct a bona
fide business during the years 1981 through 1984" (R. 15).

Doshi requested review of the ALJ's adverse determination (R. 9-12), and
the Appeals Council denied the request October 1, 1986 (R. 3-4). The
Appeals Council concluded that Doshi received a fair hearing and there was
no basis for reviewing the ALJ's findings (R. 3).

Having exhausted his administration remedies, Doshi now seeks judicial
review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Legal Framework
shi requested review of the ALJ's adverse determination (R. 9-12), and
the Appeals Council denied the request October 1, 1986 (R. 3-4). The
Appeals Council concluded that Doshi received a fair hearing and there was
no basis for reviewing the ALJ's findings (R. 3).

Having exhausted his administration remedies, Doshi now seeks judicial
review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Legal Framework

Every individual who (1) is a "fully insured individual," (2) has
attained the age of 62, and (3) has filed an application for old-age
insurance benefits, is entitled to receive old-age (or retirement)
insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 402(a). The Secretary ruled that Doshi was
not a "fully insured individual." The term "fully insured individual"
means, as pertinent here, an individual who has not less than one quarter
of coverage for each calendar year after 1950 and before the year he or
she turns sixty-two years old. 42 U.S.C. § 414(a). Since Doshi was born on
December 27, 1919 (R. 56), and turned sixty-two in 1981, he needed thirty
quarters of coverage to be "fully insured." 20 C.F.R. § 404.115.

The term "quarter of coverage" means, for calendar years after 1977, a
calendar quarter in which an individual receives wages or is credited with
"net earnings from self-employment" in an amount which equals or exceeds
an amount specified by the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. § 413(a)(2)(A)(ii). The
"amounts specified" per quarter for the years 1978 through 1985 were the
following: $250 for 1978; $260 for 1979; $290 for 1980; $310 for 1981;
$340 for 1982; $370 for 1983; $390 for 1984; and $410 for 1985 (see R.
68). 42 U.S.C. § 413(d); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.143-404.144, Subpart B,
Appendix
nt which equals or exceeds
an amount specified by the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. § 413(a)(2)(A)(ii). The
"amounts specified" per quarter for the years 1978 through 1985 were the
following: $250 for 1978; $260 for 1979; $290 for 1980; $310 for 1981;
$340 for 1982; $370 for 1983; $390 for 1984; and $410 for 1985 (see R.
68). 42 U.S.C. § 413(d); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.143-404.144, Subpart B,
Appendix. In order to receive four quarters of coverage in one year (the
maximum number of quarters of coverage a person can earn in one year), an
individual must earn at least four times the "amount specified." (For
example, an individual will have earned four quarters of coverage in 1984
if he or she received wages or self-employment income exceeding
$1,560.)

The term "net earnings from self-employment" is defined as "the gross
income, as computed under subtitle A of Title 26, derived by an individual
from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the
deductions allowed under such subtitle which are attributable to such
trade or business . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 411(a). In other words, "net
earnings from self-employment" equals a person's taxable income from a
trade or business.

The phrase "trade or business" is not defined in the Social Security Act
or the regulations. The regulations simply provide that "[w]ith some
exceptions, the term 'trade or business' has the same meaning as it does
when used in section 162 of the [Internal Revenue] Code [26 U.S.C. §
162]." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1066. Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code does
not define the term "trade or business"; indeed, nowhere in the tax code
or tax regulations is a general definition of "trade or business"
provided. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, _____ U.S. _____, 107 S.
Ct. 980, 983 (1987). In his opinion, ALJ Garwal used the following legal
standard:

(R. 15-16).

In Groetzinger, the Supreme Court attempted to describe a "trade
or business" for purposes of § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code:
d, nowhere in the tax code
or tax regulations is a general definition of "trade or business"
provided. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, _____ U.S. _____, 107 S.
Ct. 980, 983 (1987). In his opinion, ALJ Garwal used the following legal
standard:

(R. 15-16).

In Groetzinger, the Supreme Court attempted to describe a "trade
or business" for purposes of § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code:

107 S. Ct. at 987.

The Court stated that the determination of the existence of a trade or
business "requires an examination of the facts in each case." 107 S. Ct.
at 988, quoting Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212, 217
(1941).

The Secretary in our case ultimately ruled that Doshi had not derived
income from a bona fide "trade or business" in the years 1981 through
1984. The primary issue presented to us is whether the Secretary's
determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Evidence Presented

Doshi was born on December 27, 1919, in India (R. 56). Doshi attended
high school and college in India, receiving a master's degree in economics
and political science from the University of Bombay in 1947 (R. 155).
Doshi worked for the government of the state of Gujarat in India from 1948
to 1976, rising to become Assistant Director of Industries (R. 33). Doshi
attended Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois during 1971, but he
received no degree (R. 32, 155). Also during 1971, Doshi worked for TSC
Industries, Inc. in Chicago; Doshi was in charge of its freight project
(R. 155). From 1976 to 1979, Doshi was employed by Arat Electro Chemicals
Pvt., Ltd., in Ahmedabad, India, as an administrative officer (R. 155).
of Industries (R. 33). Doshi
attended Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois during 1971, but he
received no degree (R. 32, 155). Also during 1971, Doshi worked for TSC
Industries, Inc. in Chicago; Doshi was in charge of its freight project
(R. 155). From 1976 to 1979, Doshi was employed by Arat Electro Chemicals
Pvt., Ltd., in Ahmedabad, India, as an administrative officer (R. 155).

In 1979, Doshi apparently emigrated to the United States (R. 33). When he
filed his claim for social security benefits in 1985, Doshi claimed to
have been working in the United States since 1979 mainly as a consultant
(R. 34). Doshi claimed to give advice on matters involving taxation,
immigration, investments, real estate, and the import-export trade with
India (R. 36-37). From 1981 to 1984, Doshi had a total of eight clients
(R. 37): his son, Dr. Ashok Doshi; his daughter, Dr. Niranjana Shah and
her husband, Dr. Dipak Shah; his son, Dipak Doshi and his wife, Chetan
Doshi; his daughter's father-in-law or brother-in-law, Dipak Shah; Rohit
Shah (same); and Dr. Ashok Doshi's professional corporation (R. 94-95).

From 1981-1983, Doshi worked out of his house in Highland Park, Illinois
(R. 34); in 1983, Doshi began working out of an "office" in Chicago that
was really an apartment rented by a friend (R. 35). During the period
1981-1984, Doshi did no advertising (R. 39), and although he claimed to
have business cards, he did not have any with him at the hearing before
the ALJ (R. 39). Doshi did not use business stationery until 1983. (Id.)
use in Highland Park, Illinois
(R. 34); in 1983, Doshi began working out of an "office" in Chicago that
was really an apartment rented by a friend (R. 35). During the period
1981-1984, Doshi did no advertising (R. 39), and although he claimed to
have business cards, he did not have any with him at the hearing before
the ALJ (R. 39). Doshi did not use business stationery until 1983. (Id.)

Doshi testified he charged his clients $30 per hour for his services (R.
40). From 1981 through 1984, Doshi reported income in the following
amounts: 1981 ($15,182); 1982 ($6,600); 1983 ($2,000); 1984 ($2,450) (R.
71-72, 81, 86, 88). The services Doshi claims he provided he clients
varied. Doshi submitted several invoices evidencing services he allegedly
provided his clients, but all bore dates after August 1983 (R. 101-26). On
December 15, 1983, Doshi billed Chetan Doshi (Doshi's daughter-in-law)
$250 because he "discussed prospects for attaining M.S. degree, explained
importance thereof in the job market, accompanied [her] to different
universities, helped her in making applications and prepared resume" (R.
102). On January 31, 1984, Doshi billed his son, Dr. Ashok Doshi, $420 for
"[s]tudy of medico-economic periodicals and other literature of 1983 and
presenting the gist to you . . . [f]iling of papers for 1983 . . . [s]tudy
of Cashco drilling project" (R. 126). Indeed, much of Doshi's services
consisted of reviewing medico-economic publications and filing papers for
Dr. Ashok Doshi (R. 108, 119, 121, 124). On August 31, 1984, Doshi billed
Chetan Doshi $150 because he "assisted [her] in search of the apartment
and in selecting the present one" (R. 118). Doshi also billed his clients
for advice concerning various investment opportunities on several
occasions (see R. 105, 109, 111-13, 115, 116, 125) and on immigration
matters once (R. 114).
apers for
Dr. Ashok Doshi (R. 108, 119, 121, 124). On August 31, 1984, Doshi billed
Chetan Doshi $150 because he "assisted [her] in search of the apartment
and in selecting the present one" (R. 118). Doshi also billed his clients
for advice concerning various investment opportunities on several
occasions (see R. 105, 109, 111-13, 115, 116, 125) and on immigration
matters once (R. 114).

The ALJ doubted the veracity of Doshi's consulting business. Most, if not
all, of Doshi's clients were relatives, either blood or through marriage.
His largest client was his son (all of Doshi's billings in 1981 were to
Dr. Ashok Doshi; 83% of Doshi's billings in 1983 were to Dr. Ashok Doshi
or his professional corporation; 70% of Doshi's billings in 1984 were to
Dr. Ashok Doshi). He incurred virtually no business expenses, he worked
out of his home until 1983, and he kept informed through the use of free
government publications. He did not use business stationery until 1983 and
had no business cards with him at the hearing (R. 16). The ALJ found no
evidence that Doshi had any qualifications to give advice on taxation,
immigration, or investments. (Id.) The ALJ also found that many of
the services Doshi provided his clients (reviewing literature for his son,
helping his daughter-in-law find an apartment, etc.) were not bona fide
business services. (Id.) The ALJ concluded that Doshi did not
receive income from a bona fide trade or business from 1981 through 1984,
and therefore was not eligible for quarters of coverage during those
years. Since Doshi otherwise had only 13 quarters of coverage, he was not
fully insured and not entitled to old-age benefits (R. 18).

Discussion
an apartment, etc.) were not bona fide
business services. (Id.) The ALJ concluded that Doshi did not
receive income from a bona fide trade or business from 1981 through 1984,
and therefore was not eligible for quarters of coverage during those
years. Since Doshi otherwise had only 13 quarters of coverage, he was not
fully insured and not entitled to old-age benefits (R. 18).

Discussion

Our task is to review the evidence in the record to determine if the
Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial
evidence" is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1971). Our examination of the evidence convinces us it is
adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion. Doshi submitted no business
records for 1981 or 1982 to the ALJ. Doshi has now submitted records for
1981 to this court. (Doshi's Motion for Summary Judgment, Attachments
A1-A10). Even if we consider this "new evidence," our decision does not
change. All of Doshi's 1981 billings were to his son, Dr. Ashok Doshi. The
services provided were, in part, for reviewing literature, sorting and
filing papers, making phone calls, etc. More importantly, Doshi still has
presented no evidence of his business activities for 1982.

The evidence clearly supports the inference that Doshi's Business was not bona fide. His clients were relatives, his qualifications were
suspect, and his services rendered were often personal in nature. The fact
that no one directly contradicted Doshi's testimony is irrelevant. The ALJ
observed Doshi's demeanor and found his story lacking in veracity. We find
no basis to overrule the ALJ's decision and, accordingly, affirm.
nference that Doshi's Business was not bona fide. His clients were relatives, his qualifications were
suspect, and his services rendered were often personal in nature. The fact
that no one directly contradicted Doshi's testimony is irrelevant. The ALJ
observed Doshi's demeanor and found his story lacking in veracity. We find
no basis to overrule the ALJ's decision and, accordingly, affirm.

We find no merit to Doshi's contention the ALJ failed to fully develop
the record. Doshi was represented by a paralegal assistant, and had a full
and complete opportunity to make his case. At the hearing, the ALJ asked
numerous questions to elicit information concerning Doshi's business,
allowed Doshi's representative to ask questions, and allowed Doshi to make
a statement on his own behalf. There is no indication that the ALJ
prevented Doshi from presenting any evidence either at or after the
hearing. (Doshi argues he did not know he could submit evidence after the
hearing was over, but this argument is weak because Doshi submitted a copy
of his resume after the hearing was over (R. 155).)

We also find no merit to Doshi's contention that the ALJ examined only
part of the record rather than the whole. The ALJ addressed all the
evidence in the record in making his decision. Finally, we find meritless
Doshi's contention that the ALJ imposed on Doshi an improper burden of
proof. There is no evidence ALJ Garwal did any such thing. The ALJ drew an
inference contrary to Doshi's interest, but that does not make the
decision legally erroneous.

Conclusion

The Secretary's decision denying Doshi old-age benefits is affirmed.
Doshi's motion for summary judgment is denied; the Secretary's motion for
summary judgment is granted.

## Nearby sections

- [SSR 60-27 SSR 60-27. ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR -- MARSHALLING AND DISTRIBUTING ASSETS OF SINGLE ESTATE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_60_27.md)
- [SSR 61-7 SSR 61-7. FARM RENTAL INCOME -- MATERIAL PARTICIPATION](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_7.md)
- [SSR 61-28 SSR 61-28. SOIL BANK PAYMENTS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_28.md)
- [SSR 61-29 SSR 61-29. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF FARM](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_29.md)
- [SSR 61-42 SSR 61-42. RENTAL VALUE OF ROOM OCCUPIED BY OWNER-OPERATOR OF ROOMING HOUSE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_42.md)
- [SSR 61-43 SSR 61-43. ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR -- OPERATION OF BUSINESS AMONG ASSETS OF ESTATE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_43.md)
- [SSR 61-44 SSR 61-44. PERSONAL SERVICES PERFORMED FOR FAMILY MEMBER OF CLOSE FRIEND](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_44.md)
- [SSR 61-45 SSR 61-45. RENTAL OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_45.md)
- [SSR 61-62 SSR 61-62. INCOME FROM BUSINESS OPERATED BY LEGAL GUARDIAN OF INCOMPETENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_62.md)
- [SSR 62-17 SSR 62-17. NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-EMPLOYMENT -- PARTNERSHIP -- HUSBAND AND WIFE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_17.md)
- [SSR 62-31 SSR 62-31. NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-EMPLOYMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_31.md)
- [SSR 62-32 SSR 62-32. SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME -- OPTIONAL METHOD OF REPORTING FARM SELF-EMPLOYMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_32.md)
- [SSR 62-48 SSR 62-48. NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-EMPLOYMENT -- RENTALS FROM REAL ESTATE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_48.md)
- [SSR 62-49 SSR 62-49. NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-EMPLOYMENT -- RENTALS FROM REAL ESTATE -- ROYALTIES FROM USE OF OIL LANDS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_62_49.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_89_4c. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.