Frederick C. Kumpel - Page 11

                                       - 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