- 18 -
factor is determinative; rather, all the incidents of the
relationship must be weighed and assessed. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. at 324; NLRB v. United Insurance Co., 390
U.S. at 258; Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d 74, 76 (8th Cir.
1968); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 387.
A. Degree of Control
The principal's right to control the manner in which the
taxpayer's work is performed ordinarily is the single most
important factor in determining whether a common law employment
relationship exists. Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d at 76;
Leavell v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 140, 149 (1995); Weber v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 387. In order for a principal to
retain the requisite control over the details of a taxpayer's
work, the principal need not stand over the taxpayer and direct
every move made by that person. Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C.
at 388; Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner,
89 T.C. at 234; Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. at 985. In
6(...continued)
Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-325 (1992). Thus, Darden and Simpson,
illustrate two different routes, applicable to different types of
cases, that lead to the same result--that is, that common law
principles are to be used to determine whether a person is an
employee, in both sec. 62(a) cases and self-employment tax cases.
Once we arrive at the conclusion that common law principles are
to be used in the instant sec. 62(a) case, it is evident that the
self-employment tax statute is in pari materia with sec. 62(a)
for this purpose and it is appropriate to use self-employment tax
case opinions in the instant case to analyze what common law
principles mean as applied to the question of whether an
individual is a common law employee.
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