- 11 -
petitioner would be an employee. We recognize that Empire’s
supervision of the specifics of petitioner’s daily work was
minimal. This, however, results from the professional nature of
petitioner’s work. As we noted in James v. Commissioner, 25 T.C.
1296, 1301 (1956):
The methods by which professional men work are prescribed by
the techniques and standards of their professions. No
layman should dictate to a lawyer how to try a case or to a
doctor how to diagnose a disease. Therefore, the control of
an employer over the manner in which professional employees
shall conduct the duties of their positions must necessarily
be more tenuous and general than the control over
nonprofessional employees. Yet, despite this absence of
direct control over the manner in which professional men
shall conduct their professional activities, it cannot be
doubted that many professional men are employees. * * *
We also recognize that petitioner’s daily work life under
his association with Empire may not have differed significantly
from that when he was working as a sole proprietor. On a daily
basis, this may have been true. But, it ignores the fact that
petitioner’s relationship with former customers was fundamentally
altered, albeit perhaps formally. Moreover, by joining Empire,
petitioner chose the benefits of working for a corporation, and
he cannot, when that form seems disadvantageous, disavow the
corporate structure. See Moline Props. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S.
436 (1943).
On balance, considering the record and weighing all of the
factors, we conclude that petitioner was a common law employee
and not an independent contractor. Since petitioner was not an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011