- 13 -
When taken as a whole, the record in this case supports
petitioner’s assertion that he was an independent contractor of
Techmatics and not an employee. While petitioner was on the
payroll of Techmatics, he performed all of his services for the
U.S. Navy. The Navy recruited him, arranged for him to work
through Techmatics, and provided him with various work spaces, a
travel budget, and computer equipment. To the contrary,
Techmatics did not provide him office space or equipment.
Techmatics provided no benefits typical of those provided to
employees. Further, the temporary or as-needed basis of
petitioner’s work is reflected by his work history, where he
worked steadily while certain Navy projects were ongoing but
discontinued working when no other projects replaced them.
Moreover, petitioner believed he was an independent
contractor when he began his arrangement with Techmatics. His
behavior was consistent with that belief; petitioner submitted
invoices for his time and expenses, was paid accordingly, and
reported his income accordingly. The only change he contemplated
when he began submitting time cards instead of invoices in 1996
was to help Techmatics facilitate its payroll administration. He
did not ask for, nor did he receive, additional employee benefits
other than Techmatics’ payments of Social Security taxes on his
behalf. The employment agreement sheds little light on the
actual relationship from Techmatics’ view, and no one from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011