- 7 -
These general principles apply to the Commissioner's
determination that a taxpayer's workers are employees. See Boles
Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 77 F.3d 236, 240 (8th Cir.
1996); Kiesel v. United States, 545 F.2d 1144, 1146 (8th Cir.
1976); see also Air Terminal Cab, Inc. v. United States, 478 F.2d
575, 578 (8th Cir. 1973) ("The issue of whether an employer-
employee relationship exists for purposes of employment taxes has
generally been held to be one of fact.").
For the purposes of employment taxes, the term "employee"
includes "any individual who, under the usual common law rules
applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has
the status of an employee". Sec. 3121(d)(2); accord sec.
3306(i).
The regulations provide that
Generally, such relationship exists when the
person for whom services are performed has the right to
control and direct the individual who performs the
services, not only as to the result to be accomplished
by the work but also as to the details and means by
which that result is accomplished. That is, an
employee is subject to the will and control of the
employer not only as to what shall be done but how it
shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary
that the employer actually direct or control the manner
in which the services are performed; it is sufficient
if he has the right to do so. The right to discharge
is also an important factor indicating that the person
possessing that right is an employer. Other factors
characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily
present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and
the furnishing of a place to work, to the 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011