Frederick C. Kumpel - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          1957-1 C.B. 328, which determined that a part-time bookkeeper was           
          an independent contractor.  In Rev. Rul. 57-109, the bookkeeper             
          worked without corporate direction or supervision over his work,            
          provided his own working papers, and paid his own expenses.  The            
          company actually controlled the result of his work and not the              
          manner in which he completed it.  Petitioner’s case is                      
          distinguishable, in part, because of the level of control that              
          petitioner exercised over Smith and Mawson. Petitioner further              
          argues that he had no control over either Smith’s or Mawson’s               
          work because they were free to set their own hours and were able            
          to come and go as they pleased.  This one aspect of the                     
          relationship, even if true, is not determinative.  Petitioner’s             
          proposed findings of fact recite many aspects of Smith’s and                
          Mawson’s job over which petitioner exercised control.  Petitioner           
          agreed with respondent’s proposed findings of fact that                     
          petitioner had the authority to control how any file was closed             
          by a secretary, to control what errands a secretary would run for           
          him, to control how and when a document was filed in a court, to            
          control how any incoming mail was handled, to control what went             
          into the outgoing mail and how it was sent, and to control what             
          documents were photocopied.  In addition, petitioner states in              
          his brief that he had “authority to control the manner in which             
          Smith’s tasks were performed” subject to Smith’s schedule.                  
               Petitioner emphasized at trial and in his brief that, if               
          Smith or Mawson were not in the office on a particular day, he              
          would complete the tasks that they normally would complete.                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011