- 9 - principal can discharge the individual; (5) whether the work is part of the principal’s regular business; (6) the permanency of the relationship; and (7) the relationship the parties believed they were creating. Id. All the facts and circumstances of each case should be considered. Id. The right of control is ordinarily the crucial factor in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. Matthews v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 351, 361 (1989), affd. 907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990). To retain the requisite control over the details of an individual’s work, the principal need not stand over the individual and direct every move made by the individual; it is sufficient if he has the right to do so. Sec. 31.3401(c)- 1(b), Employment Tax Regs.; see also Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 388. Similarly, the employer need not set the employee’s hours or supervise every detail of the work environment to control the employee. Gen. Inv. Corp. v. United States, 823 F.2d 337, 342 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the degree of control necessary to find employee status varies according to the nature of the services provided. Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 388; see also Reece v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-335. Petitioner contends that he had no control over the individual beauticians he hired; therefore they were independent contractors. We disagree. Taking the record as a whole, we find that the individualsPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011