- 17 -
accident or health insurance, not life insurance, under North
Dakota law. Accordingly, petitioner was not a full-time life
insurance salesman within the meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(B)
and is not entitled to statutory employee status.
Common-Law Employee or Independent Contractor
Petitioners next argue that petitioner was an independent
contractor under the common-law standards, while respondent
argues that petitioner was an employee. We agree with
petitioners. In order to decide whether an individual is an
employee or an independent contractor, we consider the entire
situation and the special facts and circumstances of each case.
Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974, 985 (1975). No one factor
is controlling. Id. Nonetheless, the factor on which we focus
(as do the parties) is control. We consider control actually
asserted over the details of an alleged employee’s performance
and also the degree to which an alleged employer may intervene to
impose such control. Butts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-478,
affd. per curiam 49 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 1995); see Radio City
Music Hall Corp. v. United States, 135 F.2d 715, 717 (2d Cir.
1943); deTorres v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-161.
Respondent presents many factors that, according to
respondent, demonstrate control by Combined over petitioner. We
have encountered almost all of these factors in Butts v.
Commissioner, supra, and its progeny, Smithwick v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-582, affd. per curiam sub nom. Butts v.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011