Lance R. and Elaine C. LeFleur - Page 26

                                               - 26 -                                                 
            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; (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 Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S. 254, 258-259 (1968);                             
            Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387; Professional & Executive                             
            Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 225, 232 (1987), affd. 862                         
            F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988).  No single factor is determinative;                             
            rather, all the incidents of the relationship must be weighed and                         
            assessed.  NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., supra at 258; Weber v.                         
            Commissioner, supra at 387.                                                               
                  The documentary evidence and testimony in the record                                
            indicate that, at all times, BERC treated petitioner as an                                
            employee and that petitioner regarded himself as such.                                    
            Nevertheless, petitioners maintain that petitioner "did not incur                         
            these expenses in the course of his trade or business as an                               
            employee of BERC because he would not have been entitled to the                           
            commissions associated with the sale * * * as part of his regular                         
            salary".  While this may be true, petitioners do not explain how                          
            this transposes petitioner's employee status into that of an                              
            independent contractor.  The arrangement set forth in the April                           
            27 letter was meant as an addition to petitioner's regular                                

Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011