George A. and Laurene S. Beitel - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-661); see also Weber v.                       
          Commissioner, supra at 390 (noting that where professional                  
          individuals are involved, the control necessarily becomes more              
          tenuous than the control over nonprofessional employees).  We               
          concluded that the colleges maintained and exercised sufficient             
          control appropriate to the situation and that the level of                  
          control was sufficient to render the taxpayer an employee of the            
          colleges.  Taking into account other common-law factors set forth           
          above, we concluded that the taxpayer was an employee of both               
          colleges.  See also Bilenas v. Commissioner, supra (finding that            
          an untenured, adjunct professor was an employee of a college                
          rather than an independent contractor in relation to his teaching           
          activities).                                                                
               As in Potter v. Commissioner, supra, we are satisfied in               
          this case that the universities had the authority to exercise,              
          and exercised, sufficient control over petitioner’s teaching                
          assignments to support a finding that petitioner was an employee            
          of the universities.  Our conclusion on this point is further               
          supported by the application of other of the common-law factors             
          relevant to such determinations.  Specifically, we note:                    
          (1) The nature of petitioner’s services to the universities as an           
          adjunct professor is consistent with the regular business of each           
          university; (2) petitioner’s compensation for the teaching                  
          assignments was set by contract--the risk of loss from under                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011