-15-
of days he worked. The amount FBO paid petitioner was not
dependent upon completion of the project.
As to the fourth factor, while FBO had the right to discharge
petitioner without cause with a 30-day notice, petitioner also
could terminate the contract.
As to the fifth factor, FBO was in charge of constructing U.S.
Government buildings overseas. Petitioner's assignment in Bogota
during the year under consideration was to oversee the construction
of an annex to the U.S. Embassy. This type of work was clearly
within the scope of FBO's regular business.
As to the sixth factor, we believe that the relationship
between petitioner and FBO was intended to be somewhat permanent as
opposed to transitory. Petitioner had been working solely for FBO
since 1983. He was required to personally perform the services of
project director designated in his contract with FBO. He did not
offer his services to the public and did not perform services for
any individual or entity other than FBO, as would an independent
contractor. See Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-570;
Casety v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-410; Gamal-Eldin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-150, affd. without published opinion
876 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1989).
Finally, as to the seventh factor, the type of relationship
the parties intended to create when they signed various
modifications to petitioner's contract is not clear. However, in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011