- 21 -
other, is that in the latter cases the company in question
required the taxpayer to maintain an office, while there was no
such requirement in the instant case. However, we believe that
as a practical matter petitioner was required to maintain an
office in order to maintain communications with his agents and
for storage of materials. Likewise, he required the services of
a secretary to keep up with the paperwork entailed in supervising
his agents and submitting results of their sales to Combined.
This sort of investment evidences independent contractor status.
Considering the entire record in this case, we find that
petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an
employee.6
Benefits and Self-Employment Tax
In an amendment to his answer, respondent asserted that, in
the event we find that petitioner was an independent contractor,
petitioners are liable for self-employment tax. Petitioners do
not address the question of self-employment tax on brief, and we
find that petitioners are liable for self-employment tax.7 See
sec. 1402. However, petitioners may, to the extent permitted by
6 Because we have found that petitioner was an independent
contractor, it is unnecessary for us to consider petitioners’
argument that petitioner could not be an employee because the
Fair Labor Standards Act requires employees to be paid the
minimum wage, and it was possible that petitioner would receive
substantially less than the minimum wage.
7 Of course, had petitioners’ statutory employee claim
prevailed, petitioners would not be required to pay self-
employment tax. Sec. 3121(d)(3)(B).
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