- 10 -
remedial purposes of the legislation involved. Breaux & Daigle,
Inc. v. United States, supra at 52; see also United States v.
Silk, supra at 712 ("As the federal social security legislation
is an attack on recognized evils in our national economy, a
constricted interpretation of the phrasing by the courts would
not comport with its purpose.").
Applying these criteria to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, we conclude that during the year at issue
petitioner's drivers were employees.
1. Petitioner's Right To Control
"The absence of need to control should not be confused with
the absence of right to control." McGuire v. United States, 349
F.2d 644, 646 (9th Cir. 1965). The degree of control necessary
to find employee status varies with the nature of the services
provided by the worker. See United States v. W.M. Webb, Inc.,
supra at 192-193; Breaux & Daigle, Inc. v. United States, supra
at 52; Azad v. United States, supra at 77; McGuire v. United
States, supra at 646 ("The right to control contemplated by the
Regulations relevant here and the common law as an incident of
employment requires only such supervision as the nature of the
work requires."). It is not necessary that the purported
employer "'stand over the employee and direct every move that he
makes.'" Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974, 985 (1975)
(quoting Atlantic Coast Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 76 F.
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