- 10 -
means by which that result is accomplished.” Sec. 31.3121(d)-
1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs.; see also Gamal-Eldin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-150, affd. without published
opinion 876 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1989).
With that guidance, we consider whether petitioner was a
common law employee or independent contractor. Mr. Dixon
controlled the details of when and how the work was to be
performed at his residence. He dictated the means by which the
duties were to be accomplished. Mr. Dixon supplied all the food,
cooking utensils, and cleaning supplies. He specifically
described how certain things were to be cleaned and what supplies
were to be used. Mr. Dixon controlled the times meals were to be
served and what was to be prepared. Petitioner had no investment
expense, nor was she responsible for work expenses. Petitioner
had no opportunity for income or loss, and Mr. Dixon could
terminate petitioner at any time for cause. As we view the facts
in this case, in light of the factors enumerated above, we find
that petitioner was an employee of Mr. Dixon’s for 15 weeks
during the year at issue.
Because petitioner has established she was Mr. Dixon’s
employee for 15 weeks in 1999, she has met the threshold
requirement to invoke section 119. Accordingly, we must
determine whether petitioner has met the remaining elements of
section 119 to exclude from gross income the value of the meals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011