- 10 - Petitioner’s reliance on Smith’s and Mawson’s flexible schedules is misplaced. The hours were flexible because of the agreement between petitioner and the secretaries and not by unilateral action by the secretaries. While Smith and Mawson were performing services for petitioner, they were under the direct control of petitioner, who determined the manner in which they would perform their jobs. Petitioner controlled both Smith and Mawson in the completion of their job functions in a manner consistent with employee status. 2. Investment in Facilities Respondent emphasizes that petitioner invested in the facilities of the law practice, claiming deductions over the years in issue of over $49,000 for supplies and office expenses used by Smith and Mawson. Respondent also emphasizes that petitioner reimbursed Smith for supplies she purchased for the office. In this case, petitioner supplied the office space, a computer, and other equipment used by Smith and Mawson to perform their functions. Although petitioner testified that Smith sometimes worked from her home, her choice to work at home, using her own computer, was her preference. It appears that Smith’s work at home was de minimis as well as voluntary. Smith was not required to make any investment. See, e.g., Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 390. These facts are indicative of an employer-employee relationship.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011