- 19 -
the route distributors, however, testified regarding what kind of
relationship they thought they had with petitioner.
c. Outside Sales
Miller filled out a questionnaire given to petitioner’s
workers, who were also his clients, by the IRS. For the two
outside sales workers who responded, Miller answered that they
thought they were independent contractors. None of the outside
sales workers, however, testified at trial.
8. Additional Factor
Petitioner argues that the route distributors carried
products of, the outside sales workers marketed products for, and
the cash payroll workers had contracts with, companies other than
petitioner. In Kelly v. Commissioner, supra, we held that
working for a number of employers during a tax year does not
necessitate treatment as an independent contractor.
9. Conclusion
After considering the record as a whole, weighing all of the
factors, and being cognizant that doubtful questions should be
resolved in favor of employment, we conclude that the cash
payroll workers, bakery workers, and outside sales workers were
common law employees. Upon the basis of this record, however, we
do not find the route distributors to be common law employees.8
8 Petitioner did not control the route distributors to the
same degree as it controlled the bakery workers and cash payroll
(continued...)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011