- 15 -
Petitioners in their opposition further averred that
petitioner was given no instruction from DWP as to how to
discharge his professional responsibilities; was provided no
professional training by DWP; did not receive employee benefits
such as health insurance, vacation pay, or pension participation;
was not reimbursed for the expenses reflected on Schedules C; and
could have incurred a loss, “though unlikely”. Petitioners also
emphasized that the medical services performed by petitioner were
not a key factor in the power generation business of DWP. In
addition, petitioners attached to their opposition a photocopy of
petitioner’s DWP identification badge, which states “CONTRACTOR
MEDICAL”, and a Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, which
reports nonemployee compensation from DWP for 1990. Petitioners
contend that both show DWP considered petitioner an independent
contractor.
Nonetheless, even if we were to accept petitioners’ above-
recited factual allegations as accurate, they would fall far
short of overcoming the conclusion compelled by the totality of
the admitted facts. We particularly note that the two
documentary items offered are at most a reflection of how the
parties thereto viewed the relationship and even on that score
are outweighed by the more contemporaneous and probative Forms W-
2. We also observe that petitioner apparently acquiesced in
DWP’s use of Forms W-2 despite purported objections.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011