- 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.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011