- 10 -
recognize off-duty employment as employment by the Department.
This is evidenced by the Form W-2 issued to petitioner and by the
fact that income from such sources is not taken into account for
pension purposes.
The conclusions in March v. Commissioner, supra and Kaiser
v. Commissioner, supra regarding other indicia of an
employee/employer relationship will be briefly reiterated and
followed by this Court. One indicator is that an employee
performs work that directly benefits the employer. March v.
Commissioner, supra. Although petitioner testified that the
Department benefited from his off-duty employment because the
amount of police calls out to the school and apartments
decreased, such a benefit was indirect and could have resulted
from the use of private security guards. March v. Commissioner,
supra. The school district and the housing authority asked for
and received the main benefit of added security provided by
petitioner's presence on their premises.
Another factor of an employee/employer relationship is the
ability to select and discharge at will. March v. Commissioner,
supra. In this case, the school district and the housing
authority retained this power. This factor militates against
petitioner's position. The mere approval from the Department to
work off-duty does not amount to the ability to hire and fire
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011