- 6 -
of the services provided. Finally, the Court must consider not
only what actual control is exercised but also what right of
control exists as a practical matter. See Hathaway v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-389.
The Court finds it noteworthy that petitioner did not have
clients of his own. Petitioner's sole income as a process server
came from the Messenger Service. The Messenger Service
determined the geographic area that petitioner was to serve. At
least one other person was a process server who worked a
different geographic area. Petitioner was required to report or
make a return of his service activity to the Messenger Service.
Petitioner reported regularly, although not necessarily on a
daily basis, to a place maintained by the Messenger Service for
the conduct of its trade or business. Although petitioner was
not provided a daily schedule of services to be made on any given
day, the Messenger Service determined the urgency or the priority
for certain services, and petitioner was required to report on
the results of his services. On this record, the Messenger
Service retained the necessary control over petitioner's activity
consistent with an employer-employee relationship. Although
petitioner was required to use his own vehicle to make his
services, he otherwise had no investment in the work facilities.
Petitioner was paid a specific amount for each service he made
plus mileage; consequently, he had no opportunity for profit or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011