- 8 -
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
employer need not set the employee’s hours or supervise every
detail of the work environment to control the employee. Gen.
Inv. Corp. v. United States, 823 F.2d 337, 342 (9th Cir. 1987).
Two of the six video workers at issue here, Tracey Ashley
and Eric Patrick, were teenagers who Mr. McLean testified were
“employees that worked” after school about 10 hours a week at the
North Moreland location. They were paid by the hour and
performed assigned duties at the place of business. They were
required to sign into and out from work. Mr. McLean testified
that their primary function was not collection and admitted that,
“to be perfectly honest with you, they could be considered as W-2
employees.” On the basis of the evidence in the record, the
Court concludes that Tracey Ashley and Eric Patrick were
employees of petitioner.
The other four video workers worked mainly at the
Metropolitan location and primarily attempted to collect
petitioner’s “lates”. They, too, were paid by the hour and were
required to sign in and out. Petitioner supplied all the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011