- 8 -
superseded and replaced their prior AE agreement as amended by
the NOA amendment. Under the NEA agreement, petitioners and
Allstate agreed that petitioners' association with Allstate would
be an independent contractor relationship effective August 1,
1992. OPINION
A. Employee Versus Independent Contractor
We have examined on three separate occasions whether
taxpayers working under similar NOA agreements are independent
contractors or employees. Mosteirin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-367; Smithwick v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-582, affd.
per curiam sub nom. Butts v. Commissioner, 49 F.3d 713 (11th Cir.
1995); Butts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-478, affd. per
curiam 49 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 1995) (the Allstate cases). The
parties agree that the facts of this case are essentially
indistinguishable from Butts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-
478.
Although respondent argues that eight factors3 commonly
analyzed by the Tax Court support a holding that petitioners are
Allstate's employees, she focuses on Allstate's right to control
3 (1) The degree of control exercised by the principal over
the details of the work; (2) which party invests in the
facilities used in the work; (3) the opportunity of the
individual for profit or loss; (4) whether the principal has the
right to discharge the individual; (5) whether the work is part
of the principal's regular business; (6) the permanency of the
relationship; (7) the relationship the parties believe they are
creating; and (8) whether fringe benefits are provided. Weber v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378 (1994), affd. per curiam 60 F.3d 1104
(4th Cir. 1995).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011