- 24 -
business. He took part in the actual inspection of purchased
aircraft and parts. He worked a minimum of 60-70 hours a week
for the company. While he received no wages or other direct
compensation as an officer during these years, both parties
contend that the amounts reported on the returns as debt
cancellation income were actually compensation. Therefore, we
find that Mr. Robinson’s activities with the corporation come
within the definition of those of an “employee” as set forth in
section 3121(d)(1) and section 31.3121(d)-1(b), Employment Tax
Regs. See also Veterinary Surgical Consultants, P.C. v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. ___, ___ (2001) (slip op. at 7-9).
In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson fit within the definition
of common law employees under section 3121(d)(2). In determining
whether an individual is an employee, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit has traditionally considered several factors,
including: Whether the business furnishes the worker with tools
and a place to work; whether the work is performed in the course
of the individual’s business rather than in some ancillary
capacity; and whether the services constituted an integral part
of the taxpayer’s business and are not incidental to the pursuit
of a separately established trade or business. Spicer
Accounting, Inc. v. United States, supra at 94. Other relevant
factors to which the courts have looked in determining the
substance of the employment relationship are the following: (1)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011