- 10 -
739-740 (1989)). Hence, absent an overriding statutory
definition, common law agency principles apply in determining the
existence of an employment relationship. Adcock v. Chrysler
Corp., 166 F.3d 1290, 1292 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Alford
v. United States, supra at 336; Beech Trucking Co. v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 428, 440 (2002); Weber v. Commissioner,
supra at 386.
General guidance addressing common law precepts can be found
in the explanation set forth in section 31.3121(d)-1(c),
Employment Tax Regs.:
Common Law Employees.--(1) Every individual is an
employee if under the usual common law rules the
relationship between him and the person for whom he
performs services is the legal relationship of employer
and employee.
(2) Generally such relationship exists when the
person for whom services are performed has the right to
control and direct the individual who performs the
services, not only as to the result to be accomplished
by the work but also as to the details and means by
which that result is accomplished. That is, an
employee is subject to the will and control of the
employer not only as to what shall be done but how it
shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary
that the employer actually direct or control the manner
in which the services are performed; it is sufficient
if he has the right to do so. The right to discharge
is also an important factor indicating that the person
possessing that right is an employer. Other factors
characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily
present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and
the furnishing of a place to work, to the individual
who performs the services. In general, if an
individual is subject to the control or direction of
another merely as to the result to be accomplished by
the work and not as to the means and methods for
accomplishing the result, he is an independent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011