Richard G. and Carolyn J. Newhouse - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
               Petitioners dated and signed their 1995 Federal income tax             
          return on April 14, 1998.                                                   
                                     Discussion                                       
               Petitioners argue that petitioner was an independent                   
          contractor with respect to his teaching positions in 1995 at the            
          four junior colleges.  If the Court should determine that he was            
          not an independent contractor, petitioners argue that they should           
          be allowed employee business expense deductions on Schedule A,              
          Itemized Deductions, of $39,553 as claimed on Schedule C of their           
          return.                                                                     
          Employee or Independent Contractor                                          
               Whether an individual is an employee or independent                    
          contractor is a factual question to which common law principles             
          apply.  Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323               
          (1992); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378, 386 (1994), affd. 60           
          F.3d 1104 (4th 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                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011