- 8 -
the work and not as to the means and methods for
accomplishing the result, he is an independent
contractor. * * * [Secs. 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2),
31.3306(i)-1(b), Employment Tax Regs.]
The regulations provide a "summary of the principles of the
common law, intended as an initial guide" for the employer-
employee determination, rather than a workable test complete in
itself for determining whether an employer-employee relationship
exists. United States v. W.M. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179, 194
(1970); see also Breaux & Daigle, Inc. v. United States, 900 F.2d
49, 51 (5th Cir. 1990); In re McAtee, 126 Bankr. 568, 571 (N.D.
Iowa 1991).
In Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. United States, 503 F.2d
423, 429 (2d Cir. 1974), the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit distilled the following seven factors for determining
whether an employer-employee relationship exists (the Avis test)
from the Supreme Court's decisions in Bartels v. Birmingham, 332
U.S. 126 (1947), and United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947):
(1) If the person receiving the benefit of a service has the
right to control the manner in which the service is performed,
the person rendering the service may be an employee. (2) If a
person rendering a service has a substantial investment in his
own tools or equipment, he may be an independent contractor. (3)
If a person performing a service undertakes a substantial cost,
for example, by employing and paying his own laborers, he may be
an independent contractor. (4) If a person performing a service
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