- 17 -
the subsequent lawsuit. Nevertheless, we find RHB exercised the
requisite control over petitioner. This factor supports a
finding that petitioner was an employee of RHB.
2. The Relationship the Parties Believe They Are Creating
Petitioners argue the parties intended to create a hybrid
relationship where: (1) The fiduciaries were the principal and
RHB was the agent because the fiduciaries paid RHB to provide
them with office space, equipment, and administrative services;
and (2) to the extent the fiduciaries provided administrative
(nonfiduciary) services to RHB, the fiduciaries were employees of
RHB. Petitioners conclude that, because the lawsuit arose from
the first type of relationship, the legal fees were attributable
to his trade or business of being an independent professional
fiduciary and were not attributable to petitioner’s employment by
RHB. Petitioners’ argument is not supported by the record.
While petitioner and RHB did not enter into an employment
agreement until 1986, the nature of the relationship before 1986
indicates that the parties believed they were creating an
employer-employee relationship. Before being hired by MDM, RHB’s
predecessor, petitioner had no experience serving as a fiduciary.
Petitioner received on-the-job training by MDM and RHB.
Petitioner was subject to supervision and annual review by RHB
and its shareholders and directors. These factors are more
consistent with an employer-employee relationship than with
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011