- 5 -
returned the proceeds to Automotive Emporium as an
accommodation.2
The classification of the amount reported by Automotive
Emporium as nonemployee compensation depends upon whether
petitioner is a common law employee or an independent contractor
for Federal income tax purposes. See Weber v. Commissioner, 103
T.C. 378, 386-387 (1994), affd. 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995).
Courts have identified a number of factors relevant in evaluating
common law employment status, including the following: (1) The
right of the hiring party to exercise control over the manner and
means of the work; (2) the discretion of the hiring party over
the time and duration of the work; (3) the permanency of the
relationship; (4) the right of the hiring party to discharge; (5)
the source of and investment in the instrumentalities, tools, and
facilities of the work; (6) the method of payment; (7) the
provision of employee benefits; (8) the opportunity of the hired
party for profit or loss; (9) the right of the hiring party to
assign additional projects; (10) the offering by the hired party
of services to the general public; (11) the skill required for
the work; (12) whether the type of work is part of the hiring
2 We note the discrepancy between the amounts reflected in
the Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, $21,552, and the checks
totaling $20,167.55. Petitioner has not “asserted a reasonable
dispute” with respect to the income reported on an information
return, nor fully cooperated with respondent, so as to place on
respondent the burden of producing reasonable and probative
information in addition to the Form 1099-MISC. See sec. 6201(d);
McQuatters v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-88. Given the nature
of petitioner’s incredible testimony, we accept the $21,552 as
the amount paid to petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011