- 7 -
which that result is accomplished. That is, an
employee is subject to the will and control of the
employer not only as to what shall be done but how it
shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary
that the employer actually direct or control the manner
in which the services are performed; it is sufficient
if he has the right to do so. The right to discharge
is also an important factor indicating that the person
possessing that right is an employer. Other factors
characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily
present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and
the furnishing of a place to work, to the individual
who performs the services. In general, if an
individual is subject to the control or direction of
another merely as to the result to be accomplished by
the work and not as to the means and methods for
accomplishing the result, he is an independent
contractor. * * *
Although the determination of employee status is to be made by
common law concepts, a realistic interpretation should be
adopted, and doubtful questions should be resolved in favor of
employment. Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 263,
269 (2001).
This Court considers the following factors to decide whether
a worker is a common law employee or an independent contractor:
(1) The degree of control exercised by the principal; (2) which
party invests in the work facilities used by the individual;
(3) the opportunity of the individual for profit or loss;
(4) whether the principal can discharge the individual;
(5) whether the work is part of the principal’s regular business;
(6) the permanency of the relationship; and (7) the relationship
the parties believed they were creating. Id. at 270; Weber v.
Commissioner, supra at 387. All of the facts and circumstances
of each case are considered, and no single factor is dispositive.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011