- 7 -
loss; (4) whether the principal can 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 believed they were creating. See id. All the facts and
circumstances of each case should be considered. See id.
The right of control is ordinarily the crucial factor in
determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
See Matthews v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 351, 361 (1989), affd. 907
F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990). To retain the requisite control over
the details of an individual’s work, the principal need not stand
over the individual and direct every move made by the individual.
See Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 388.
Petitioner failed to establish that he had sufficient
control over the relationship at the time service was rendered to
be classified as an independent contractor. According to
petitioner’s own testimony, upon acceptance of a job, the hiring
company provided a script and instructed petitioner to read it
according to the company’s specifications. If the company
preferred a change in how the script was read, petitioner would
be required to make the requested adjustments.
Petitioner argues that having the right to pick and choose
the jobs of his choice demonstrates he had control over his
services. However, petitioner failed to establish the details of
control he had over the engagement agreement once petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011