- 18 -
v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 351, 361 (1989), affd. 907 F.2d 1173
(D.C. Cir. 1990); Youngs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-94.
In the present case, according to Ms. D’Acunto, a primary
difference in petitioner’s job during the disputed pay period
was that petitioner basically set his own work hours and was
allowed to work from home, which petitioner did on several
occasions. Petitioner’s hours were a source of significant
tension between petitioner and New Dimensions. The nature of
commercial trucking requires dispatchers to work early in the
morning as the best loads are often procured early in the day on
a first-come, first-served basis. According to New Dimensions’
president, during the disputed pay period petitioner “more or
less started to come in when he felt like it”. This diminution
in New Dimensions’s control over petitioner’s working hours was
significant. Under these circumstances, we consider the degree
of control factor inconclusive for purposes of determining
petitioner’s status as an employee or independent contractor
during the brief disputed pay period.
3. Investment in Facilities
Petitioner generally worked at the office furnished by New
Dimensions, but he was permitted to work from home during the
disputed pay period. Overall, these circumstances support an
employer-employee relationship since petitioner only worked from
home on a small number of occasions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011