- 7 -
principal’s right of discharge; (6) whether the work performed is
an integral part of the principal’s regular business; (7) the
relationship the parties believe they are creating; and (8) the
provision, if any, of employee benefits. NLRB v. United Ins. Co.
of Am., 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968); United States v. Silk, 331 U.S.
704, 716 (1947); Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387; Profl. &
Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 232; see also
sec. 31.3121(d)-(1)(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs. (setting forth
criteria for identifying employees under the common law rules).
No single factor is dispositive; the Court must assess and
weigh all incidents of the relationship. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Darden, supra at 324. The factors are not weighted
equally; they are weighted according to their significance in the
particular case. Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 861 (2d Cir.
1992).
While all of the above factors are important, the “right-to-
control test” is the “master test” in determining the nature of a
working relationship. Matthews v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 351, 361
(1989), affd. 907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Both the control
exercised by the alleged employer and the degree to which the
alleged employer may intervene to impose control must be
examined. Radio City Music Hall Corp. v. United States, 135 F.2d
715, 717 (2d Cir. 1943); deTorres v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-161. “[N]o actual control need be exercised, as long as the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011