-14-
if petitioner failed to submit such reports, FBO had the right to
terminate his contract.
We are satisfied that petitioner was subject to substantial
control by FBO. Although petitioner worked for FBO in a
professional capacity, which would limit the amount of control FBO
had over petitioner's day-to-day activities,10 FBO dictated the
contract documents and drawings, budget, hours, and monthly reports
with which petitioner was required to comply. We therefore
conclude that FBO had the right to exercise control over petitioner
and in fact exerted a substantial amount of control over him. See
James v. Commissioner, supra.
We now turn to the other factors. With respect to the second
factor, petitioner had no investment in the work facilities;
rather, FBO provided petitioner with office space and staff
assistance. See Professional & Executive Leasing v. Commissioner,
89 T.C. at 234. FBO entered into contracts with petitioner's staff
and paid their salaries.
As to the third factor, petitioner had no opportunity for
profit or loss. The pay he received depended only upon the number
10 Petitioner argues that he was not an employee because
he scheduled his own daily activities. We believe that
petitioner's ability to schedule his activities only demonstrates
that in connection with professionals less supervision is
necessary. See Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d 74, 77 (8th Cir.
1968).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011