- 12 - During the years in issue, the functions that petitioner hired Smith and Mawson to complete were functions of the operation of his law practice, including filing court documents, photocopying, running errands, and sending outgoing mail. These facts indicate employee status. 6. Permanency of the Relationship Smith worked for petitioner for 4 years, and Mawson worked for petitioner for three quarters of 1997. Respondent asserts that these time periods are sufficient to create a permanent relationship. Petitioner argues that “there was never anything permanent about the relationship with either Smith or Mawson. The relationship was loose and transitory in every respect.” A transitory work relationship may point toward independent contractor status. See Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. at 273. Smith, however, did not have a transitory relationship with petitioner. Petitioner testified that Smith could leave at any time for a better offer; however, this possibility does not demonstrate a transitory relationship. Although Smith and Mawson did not always work regular schedules and Smith sometimes worked for third parties, they worked in the course of petitioner’s regular business, and their respective relationships with petitioner were not transitory in nature. 7. Relationship the Parties Thought They Created Petitioner argued repeatedly at trial and on brief that he intentionally established Smith and Mawson as independentPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011