8
benefits. It appears that Astron believed it was creating an
independent contractor relationship with petitioner; Astron did
not withhold any taxes, and it required petitioner to submit
invoices for payment on work completed. Astron hired petitioner
to complete a specific project, i.e., the relocation of its
existing operations, suggesting that his employment was not
permanent or indefinite. Furthermore, petitioner's work was not
an integral part of Astron's business, the fabrication of wire
display racks.
On the other hand, other factors do favor petitioner's
contention. Astron provided petitioner with the facilities to
conduct his work, and petitioner apparently was subject to
discharge. It does not appear that petitioner had an opportunity
for profit or loss.
Other factors are neutral. Petitioner testified that he
believed he was hired as an employee, but it is also clear that
petitioner recognized that his relationship with Astron and the
manner in which he was paid were not the same as that he
experienced with a previous employer. The expenses claimed on
petitioner's Schedule C suggest that petitioner had an investment
in his facilities. However, petitioner testified that the office
expenses claimed related to his work for other companies,
although he did no such work during the year in issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011