- 25 -
Hathaway was an employee of TAG. Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d
at 78; Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 392.
Notwithstanding Hathaway’s and Arthur Penn's testimony and
Theresa Hinton’s March 21, 1990, letter, the bulk of the evidence
on this factor points to the conclusion that TAG and Hathaway
believed that they had created a employer-employee relationship.
This factor would support a finding that Hathaway was an employee
of TAG.
H. Provision of Employee-Type Benefits7
Hathaway participated in TAG's pension plan and TAG provided
to Hathaway long-term disability insurance and life insurance.
TAG also funded two-thirds of Hathaway’s medical insurance
benefits.
The provision of these benefits would support a finding that
Hathaway was an employee of TAG. NLRB v. United Insurance Co.,
390 U.S. at 259; Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d at 78; Weber v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 393-394.
I. Conclusion
The relationship between Hathaway and TAG had aspects that
were characteristic of an employer and an employee and others
7 On opening brief, respondent contends, for the first time,
that if Hathaway is not a common law employee, then the value of
any benefits provided by TAG to Hathaway would be taxable as
income to Hathaway. This matter has not been properly pleaded,
and, thus, we shall not consider it here. Markwardt v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 989, 997-999 (1975).
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