- 6 -
time on campus. They contend that the universities exercised
very little control over petitioner’s teaching assignments.
Therefore, according to petitioners, petitioner’s relationship to
each university was as an independent contractor, not as an
employee.
A similar argument was advanced by the taxpayer under
similar circumstances in Potter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
356. In that case the taxpayer was an untenured college
professor employed on a course-by-course basis. The colleges and
the taxpayer entered into written contracts that specified the
courses to be taught, teaching hours, location of classes, and
compensation arrangements. The taxpayer considered himself to be
an independent contractor and reported the income and related
expenses from his teaching activities on a Schedule C. The
Commissioner determined that the taxpayer was an employee of the
colleges and, accordingly, treated the deductions claimed on the
Schedule C as employee business expenses.
The Court agreed with the Commissioner and rejected the
taxpayer’s argument that the colleges did not exert sufficient
control over his teaching activities to render him an employee of
the colleges. In so doing, we stated that “Where the inherent
nature of the job mandates an independent approach, a lesser
degree of control exercised by the principal may result in a
finding of an employer-employee status.” Id. (citing Bilenas v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011