- 12 -
In evaluating these factors, an additional axiom which has
become firmly entrenched in caselaw is that the extent of control
necessary to find employment status is less for a professional,
as opposed to a nonprofessional, worker. Azad v. United States,
388 F.2d 74, 77 (8th Cir. 1968); Weber v. Commissioner, supra at
388; Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
225, 234 (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988); James v.
Commissioner, 25 T.C. 1296, 1301 (1956). This Court, for
instance, in a case involving a physician, early characterized
the requisite control as “more tenuous and general” and observed
that “despite this absence of direct control over the manner in
which professional men shall conduct their professional
activities, it cannot be doubted that many professional men are
employees.” James v. Commissioner, supra at 1301.
As regards the instant case, we are satisfied that the
foregoing criteria, in conjunction with the facts admitted and
deemed admitted, show as a matter of law that petitioner must be
treated as an employee. Pursuant to Rule 90 and other materials
in the record, it has been established that DWP had sufficient
right to control the manner in which work was performed by
petitioner during 1996 and 1997. Petitioner was directly
supervised by Dr. Miller, another individual hired by DWP. DWP
scheduled all of petitioner’s appointments, Dr. Miller controlled
which patients petitioner saw, and all patients seen by
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011