- 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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011