Barry John and Deborah Lee Houston Mangels - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
          Cir. 1995); Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89            
          T.C. 225, 232 (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988).                   
          Factors that are relevant in determining the substance of an                
          employment relationship include:  (1) The degree of control                 
          exercised by the principal over the details of the work; (2) the            
          taxpayer’s investment in the facilities used in his or her work;            
          (3) the taxpayer’s opportunity for profit or loss; (4) the                  
          permanency of the relationship between the parties; (5) the                 
          principal’s right of discharge; (6) whether the work performed is           
          an integral part of the principal’s regular business; (7) the               
          relationship the parties believe they are creating; and (8) the             
          provision of employee benefits.  NLRB v. United Ins. Co., 390               
          U.S. 254, 258 (1968); United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 716              
          (1947); Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387; Profl. & Executive             
          Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 232; see also sec.                  
          31.3121(d)-(1)(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs. (setting forth                   
          criteria for identifying employees under the common law rules).             
               Because no single factor is dispositive, the Court must                
          assess and weigh all incidents of the relationship.  Nationwide             
          Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra at 324.  The factors are not                 
          weighed equally; they are weighed according to their significance           
          in the particular case.  Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 861 (2d            
          Cir. 1992).                                                                 
               Respondent’s witness, Joseph Parziale, testified that                  
          petitioner worked as a subcontractor for JWH.  Petitioner offered           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011