- 9 -
necessary supplies and equipment for them to perform their
duties. It paid all expenses required to attempt to collect the
lates. Mr. McLean, and to some extent his administrative
assistant, supervised the process within which the video workers
worked. At least three of the four were sometimes assigned to
work at the North Moreland location to perform duties the same as
or similar to those of the two teenage employees working at that
location.
In this case the Court is satisfied that petitioner had the
authority to exercise, and did exercise, sufficient control over
the video workers to support a finding that it was their
employer. See Potter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-356;
Bilenas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-661. In addition, the
Court finds that: (1) The investment in the facilities used in
the work of the video workers was made by petitioner; (2) the pay
of the video workers was fixed, thereby eliminating the
opportunity for “profit” or loss; (3) the work performed by the
video workers was an integral part of petitioner’s business; and
(4) petitioner considered them employees. Indeed, Mr. McLean’s
testimony indicates that because of his prior bad experiences
with outside contractors his intent at the outset was to hire
employees to collect the “lates”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011