Paul E. Hathaway and Brenda J. Hathaway - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               Petitioners have the burden of proving error in respondent’s           
          notice of deficiency determination that Hathaway was a common law           
          employee.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115               
          (1933); Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner,             
          89 T.C. at 231.                                                             
               Among the relevant factors in determining the nature of an             
          employment relationship are the following: (1) The degree of                
          control exercised by the principal over the details of the work;            
          (2) which party invests in the facilities used in the work; (3)             
          the taxpayer's opportunity for profit or loss; (4) the permanency           
          of the relationship between the parties to the relationship; (5)            
          the principal's right of discharge; (6) whether the work                    
          performed is an integral part of the principal's business; (7)              
          what relationship the parties believe they are creating; and (8)            
          the provision of benefits typical of those provided to employees.           
          NLRB v. United Insurance Co., 390 U.S. 254, 258-259 (1968);                 
          Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d            
          at 753, 89 T.C. at 232; Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 387;             
          Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974, 984-985 (1975).6  No one              

          6    In self-employment tax cases we apply common law principles            
          to determine whether the taxpayer is an employee because the                
          statute directs us to do so.  Sec. 1402(d); sec. 3121(d)(2);                
          Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974, 984 (1975).  The instant              
          case is not a self-employment tax case; rather, it is a sec.                
          62(a) case.  See supra text at note 5.  Sec. 62(a) does not                 
          involve a statutory instruction to use common law principles.  We           
          use common law principles in the instant case for the reasons               
          explained by the Supreme Court in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.               

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011