- 51 -
and/or directors, the Kelly employees, certain MedChem U.S.A.
employees, and a certain Alcon P.R. employee; petitioners assert
that individuals in the latter two categories worked concurrently
as employees of MedChem P.R. and either MedChem U.S.A. or Alcon
P.R. Petitioners specifically identify these individuals as:
(1) Mr. Perez and his staff from September 1, 1989, through June
30, 1990, (2) Messrs. Castro and Rivera from July 1990 through
March 1991 and from April through August 1992, (3) Messrs. Castro
and Velez from April 1991 through April 1992, (4) MedChem P.R.
officers and/or directors Donaldson, Geffken, Moran, Sullivan,
and Swann, (5) MedChem U.S.A. employees Acosta, Falvey, Ferdman,
Micale, McDonough, Rudolph, Severance, Shepherd, Stevens, and
Tanny, and (6) various unnamed engineers.
We do not find that any of the listed individuals were
MedChem P.R. employees. The presence of an employer-employee
relationship is a factual determination that rests on the
principles of common law. See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-324 (1992); Matthews v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 351, 360 (1989), affd. 907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990);
Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
225, 232 (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988); Simpson v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974, 984-985 (1975); see also sec.
3121(d)(2). Factors commonly considered by courts in determining
such a relationship are the: (1) Right to control the details of
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011