- 10 -
contractor relationship. Those factors are: (1) The degree of
control exercised by the principal over the details of the work;
(2) which party invests in the facilities used in the work; (3)
the opportunity of the individual for profit or loss; (4) whether
the principal has the right to discharge the individual; (5)
whether the work is an integral part of the principal’s regular
business; (6) the permanency of the relationship; and (7) the
relationship the parties believe they are creating. Weber v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378, 387 (1994), affd. per curiam 60 F.3d
1104 (4th Cir. 1995); Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 232; Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974,
984-985 (1975); see also United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 716
(1947). No single factor is dispositive, and we must look at all
the facts and circumstances in each case. See Profl. & Executive
Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 232; Simpson v.
Commissioner, supra at 985; Eren v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-555, affd. 180 F.3d 594 (4th Cir. 1999).
Applying these criteria to the facts here, we believe that
petitioner was an employee of Empire.3 It is clear that the
employment agreement between petitioner and Empire, while perhaps
unsigned, by petitioner’s testimony, represented the intent of
the parties. Under that agreement, the parties intended that
3 Due to our ultimate holding in this case it is unnecessary for
us to consider what portion, if any, of petitioner’s income from
Empire was received due to his position as an officer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011