- 8 -
individual who performs the services. In general, if
an individual is subject to the control or direction of
another merely as to the result to be accomplished by
the work and not as to the means and methods for
accomplishing the result, he [or she] is not an
employee.
The Court may consider various factors in determining the
relationship between the parties. These factors include:
(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 or not 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; and (7) the relationship the parties believe they
are creating. However, no one factor dictates the outcome.
Rather, we must look at all the facts and circumstances of each
case. Weber v. Commissioner, supra.
The facts of this case are strikingly similar to the facts
in Kaiser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-526, affd. without
published opinion 132 F.3d 1457 (5th Cir. 1997), and March v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-339. In accord with those
opinions, we find for the following reasons that petitioner was
not an employee of the City of Fort Worth when he worked off-duty
for the school district and the housing authority.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011