- 5 - used in the work; (3) the opportunity of the hired party for profit or loss; (4) whether the type of work is part of the principal’s regular business; (5) the permanency of the relationship between the parties to the relationship; (6) whether the principal has the right to discharge the individual; (7) whether the principal provides benefits to the hired party typical of those provided to employees; and (8) the relationship the parties believe they are creating. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra at 322-324; Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387; Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 232. The factors are not necessarily weighed equally, but according to their significance in the particular case. See Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 861 (2d Cir. 1992); Matt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-209; see also sec. 31.3401(c)-1(d), Employment Tax Regs. Ordinarily, the principal’s right to control the manner in which the work is performed is the single most important factor in determining whether there is an employer-employee relationship. See Leavell v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 140, 149 (1995). In this regard, petitioners point out that petitioner was free to teach his classes and supervise his thesis and special topic students as he deemed appropriate. Petitioners also point out that, other than the time spent teaching students in the classroom, petitioner was required to spend very littlePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011