- 6 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-161. "[N]o actual control need be
exercised, as long as the employer has the right to control."
Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d at
753. In order for an employer to retain the requisite control
over the details of an employee's work, the employer need not
direct each step taken by the employee. Profl. & Executive
Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 234; Gierek v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-642.
The exact amount of control required to find an employer-
employee relationship varies with different occupations. United
States v. W.M. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179, 192-193 (1970). In
fact, the threshold level of control necessary to find employee
status is in most circumstances lower when applied to
professional services than when applied to nonprofessional
services. Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d 74, 77 (8th Cir.
1968); Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
at 234. "From the very nature of the services rendered by
* * * professionals, it would be wholly unrealistic to suggest
that an employer should undertake the task of controlling the
manner in which the professional conducts his activities." Azad
v. United States, supra at 77; Weber v. Commissioner, supra at
388. An alleged employer's control "must necessarily be more
tenuous and general than the control over nonprofessional
employees." James v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 1296, 1301 (1956).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011