Final answer:
LMN Corporation does not support a safe harbor defense based on an IRS ruling for a different company (JKL Co.), as the ruling was not specific to LMN's situation and thus is not directly relevant.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to a legal concept known as the 'safe harbor defense' as it applies to worker classification under tax law. A company can use the safe harbor defense to avoid penalties for misclassifying workers as independent contractors when they are actually employees if the company can show that it had a reasonable basis for doing so. However, to qualify for this defense, the reliance must be on precedent directly relevant to the company's situation.
The options which may support a safe harbor defense for LMN Corporation include: an opinion from its corporate counsel, suggesting that it sought professional advice; the classification is consistent with industry practice, implying that LMN Corporation was following a common standard; a previous IRS ruling found these workers to be independent contractors, meaning there was a clear precedent for this classification. However, an IRS ruling in a case involving JKL Co. found similarly situated workers to be independent contractors is not as directly relevant, as the ruling applied to a different entity and may not align exactly with LMN's circumstances. Therefore, this option does not support a safe harbor defense for LMN Corporation.