- 11 -
We have previously considered a similar argument presented
in the context of an identical issue in March v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1981-339. In that case we acknowledged that the issue
is "not free from doubt", but held that the income earned by the
taxpayer, a Miami police officer, from off-duty employment was
subject to the self-employment tax imposed by section 1401. We
based our holding in March primarily upon a finding that the
police department's control, which we characterized as
"incidental", over the taxpayer's off-duty jobs was not
sufficient to support a conclusion that the taxpayer was an
employee of the police department with respect to the off-duty
jobs. The control that the Miami Police Department had over the
taxpayer's off-duty employment in March is similar, in source,
nature, and consequence to the control that the Department had
over petitioner's off-duty employment in this case. As we
observed in March v. Commissioner, supra n.16:
Petitioner correctly points out that the
Department did wield and exercise a large degree of
control over off-duty employment in that all such
employment had to meet its approval. However, it is
important to keep in mind that two types of jobs (on-
duty jobs and off-duty jobs) exist simultaneously in
this case. There is no dispute that an employer-
employee relationship existed between petitioner and
the Department with respect to his regular, on-duty
job. In our opinion, the control vested in the
Department with respect to off-duty employment relates
solely to this on-duty, employer-employee relationship.
It does not represent the Department's attempt to
control the details of the off-duty employment. For
example, Department approval of off-duty employment is
directly attributable to the Department's desire to
ensure the absence of any interference with an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011