- 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