- 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