Kevin and Bridget Naughton - Page 15




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011