- 21 -
116 F.3d 334, 336 (8th Cir. 1997); MedChem (P.R.), Inc. v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 308, 341 (2001); Profl. & Exec. Leasing,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 225, 231 (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 751
(9th Cir. 1988). Among the factors to which the courts have
looked to determine the existence of a common law employment
relationship are the following: Control exercised over the
details of the work; discretion exercised over the time and
duration of the work; the source of the instrumentalities and
tools of the work; the permanency of the relationship; the right
to assign additional projects to the hired party; the right to
discharge; the method of payment; the provision of employee
benefits; the opportunity for profit and loss; and whether the
type of work is part of the hiring party’s regular business.
Alford v. United States, supra at 337-338; Weber v. Commissioner,
103 T.C. 378, 387 (1994), affd. 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995);
Profl. & Exec. Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 232; see
also sec. 31.3401(c)-1(b), Employment Tax Regs. Normally,
control is the most significant factor in determining the nature
of a working relationship. Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387,
390.
Although the courts normally employ these common law factors
to determine whether a person in a two-party relationship is an
employee or an independent contractor, these factors are equally
applicable in determining the identity of the common law employer
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011