24
returns, petitioner did receive allowances. Contrary to
respondent's assertions, receipt of these benefits by itself is
not determinative of petitioner's status as a U.S. Government
employee. Although petitioner may have received benefits of a
type contemplated by section 912, this fact does not conclusively
determine that petitioner is a U.S. employee, but merely
indicates that someone thought he qualified for such benefits.
Neither in section 911 nor elsewhere does the Code contain
definitions of "employee" or "U.S. employee". Respondent agrees
that precedents adopt the common law test when defining
"employee" for purposes of section 911(b)(1)(B)(ii). Matthews v.
Commissioner, 907 F.2d at 1175. It is clear that absent
indications to the contrary, courts have used the common law test
for defining "employee" in tax cases. Id. at 1178. Courts have
identified several factors to be considered when determining
whether an employment relationship exists. Among them are: (1)
The right to control the manner in which the work is performed;
(2) whether the individual performing the work has an opportunity
for profit or loss; (3) the furnishing of tools and the work
place to the worker; (4) the permanency of the working
relationship; (5) whether the service rendered is an integral
part of the alleged employer's business; (6) whether services are
offered to the general public rather than to one individual; (7)
the right to discharge; and (8) the intent of the parties or the
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011