- 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 underPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011