- 11 -
3. Opportunity for Profit or Loss
Respondent argues that Smith and Mawson had no opportunity
for profit or loss beyond the $10 per hour that they earned for
work completed. Petitioner claims, without reason and contrary
to authority, that this factor is irrelevant to the analysis.
Because Smith and Mawson did not have an opportunity for profit
from petitioner’s law practice and because they were not at risk
for loss, this factor weighs in favor of an employer-employee
relationship. See, e.g., Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 391.
4. Right To Discharge
Respondent argues that petitioner had the right to discharge
Smith or Mawson at any time. Petitioner argues without evidence,
reason, or authority that Smith and Mawson could not be
discharged for “the reasons usually associated with the firing of
an employee”. The evidence shows that petitioner could discharge
either Smith or Mawson at any time, consistent with employee
status.
5. Integral Part of Business
Respondent emphasizes that the activities completed by Smith
and Mawson were all in relation to petitioner’s practice of law.
Petitioner admits on brief that Smith and Mawson “performed work
which was part of petitioner’s regular business”. He claims,
however, that Smith and Mawson were also free to work for other
people, complete school work, or handle family matters.
Petitioner’s claim is irrelevant to the analysis and lacks merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011