- 8 -
sabbatical activities, and that the benefits received by either
NUS or Seton Hall from petitioner's sabbatical activities were
attenuated and incidental.5 On the other hand, respondent argues
that petitioners have failed to produce adequate documentation to
establish that petitioner was anything other than an employee
with respect to his activities at NUS.
Petitioners have failed to present sufficient evidence
concerning petitioner's relationship with NUS. Although there is
some evidence relating to the activities performed during the
sabbatical itself, we are particularly troubled by the absence of
documentation pertaining to petitioner's agreement with NUS. The
omitted documents are those which would assist in defining the
nature of the relationship between petitioner and NUS. For
example, one missing document mentioned by petitioner at trial
was the actual letter from NUS to petitioner, appointing him as a
"Senior Fellow". The available documentary evidence, including
forms from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, indicates
that NUS treated petitioner as an employee. Therefore,
petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that he was
anything other than an employee. Rule 142(a).
5 Since the payments in question were made directly to
petitioner by NUS, and there is nothing in this record indicating
that Seton Hall had some financial arrangement with NUS or
otherwise directed petitioner's activities at NUS, we look only
to the relationship between petitioner and NUS to determine if he
was an employee.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011