Harold E. Nicholas - Page 11




                                       - 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