- 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