- 8 - her relationship with Mr. Gans and his related businesses. Petitioner contends that her alleged involvement with Neena Mosha is sufficient to establish that she was not an employee of Mr. Gans and his related businesses, but rather an employee or agent of Neena Mosha. However, there are no records showing that Neena Mosha was ever formed or that it conducted any viable business.4 Petitioner maintains that the documentary evidence was destroyed in the fire. She seems to further argue that because she had viewed the document on at least two separate occasions before the fire, that should suffice to prove the existence of Neena Mosha, and thus her status as an independent contractor. We disagree. Assuming the purported sales contract existed, it is not the only reliable evidence establishing the existence of an entity. The record is severely lacking other forms of documentary evidence corroborating the existence and/or operation of Neena Mosha: for example, business cards; business bank accounts and checks; business stationery; invoices for services rendered; utility bills, including telephone bills; office supply purchases; State business franchise tax filings; or testimony from the alleged “investors” or business associates that Neena Mosha provided consulting services (i.e., Avante Studios and 4 Petitioner testified that she invested $25,000 in Neena Mosha in 1987 but provided no documentation to prove such investment.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011