-13-
than the control over nonprofessional employees". James v.
Commissioner, 25 T.C. 1296, 1301 (1956).
We begin our analysis of the seven factors enumerated above
with the control factor. The record contains numerous
illustrations of FBO's right to control petitioner and its actual
control over him. Petitioner's contract with FBO during the year
under consideration stated that petitioner "will be directly
responsible to FBO in the performance of his duties under this
contract." While petitioner was permitted to hire and fire his
staff, and order substitutions of materials, FBO did not permit him
to deviate from the construction documents or exceed the budget.
Further, he was required to follow a Project Director's Handbook.
FBO also controlled petitioner by dictating his hours, pay,
and leave. FBO required petitioner to work full time, a minimum of
40 hours a week. Petitioner's biweekly FBO salary was based on
the Foreign Service Schedule. In addition to his salary, FBO
permitted petitioner to earn and accrue home leave, annual leave,
and sick leave.9
Petitioner also was required to maintain a daily log of the
progress of the construction project, and submit both oral and
written reports to FBO. These monthly reports were not optional;
9 While petitioner had to pay for his own health
insurance and did not accrue retirement benefits, we do not
believe such facts preclude a holding that petitioner was an FBO
employee.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011