- NEXTRECORD -
District Court concluded that the local church, through its
supervision by the District Council and the National Church,
demonstrated significant control over the manner in which the
taxpayer performed his work, and therefore held that the pastor
was an employee. In so holding, the District Court emphasized
the National Church's control over the taxpayer with respect to
preaching, doctrine, and conduct.
We observe as an initial matter that we are not bound by the
District Court's holding. In any event, we think that
petitioner's circumstances in the present case are very different
from those of the taxpayer's in Alford v. United States, supra.
Petitioner was employed as a foreign missionary, not a
pastor. We think that the National Church's authority over the
manner in which a pastor performs his or her duties is not highly
probative in analyzing the National Church's control over the
daily activities of a foreign missionary. This is because
pastoring a local church and engaging in foreign mission work are
two different jobs involving different qualifications, duties,
and bodies of authority. Pastors are subject to the controls of
a local church whereas missionaries are subject to the authority
of the DFM. As previously discussed, the DFM exerted very little
control over petitioner.
In summary, the DFM's and National Church's lack of control
over, and lack of the right to control, the manner and means by
which petitioner performed his duties as a foreign missionary
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011