- 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 individuals
Page: 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