- 9 -
with the amount of the checks and withholdings
immediately upon issuing the same.
On April 16, 1997, the Court of Common Pleas modified the
April 4, 1997, order as follows:
With respect to the Order of April 4, 1997, the same is
hereby amended NUNC PRO TUNC to include the
clarification that the payment of money to Virginia
Exley by Albert Pavlik, Jr., is not to be interpreted
in any way as modifying the settlement agreement as it
applies to Virginia Exley and with respect to whether
or not she is an employee of Barium and Chemicals, Inc.
Albert Pavlik, Jr. has been paying Virginia Exley over
the objection of the Naylors because of the Naylors’
position that she is not an employee of the
corporation. The authorization by the Court that
Albert Pavlik, Jr., may continue to pay Virginia Exley
is not now nor was it ever intended to modify or change
in any way the positions of the respective parties.
OPINION
Whether an employer-employee relationship exists in a
particular situation is a factual question. Weber v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378, 386 (1994), affd. per curiam 60 F.3d
1104 (4th Cir. 1995). For the purposes of employment taxes, the
term "employee" includes "any individual who, under the usual
common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee
relationship, has the status of an employee". Secs. 3121(d)(2),
3306(i). Section 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs.,
defines the common law employer-employee relationship as follows:
(2) Generally such relationship exists when the
person for whom services are performed has the right to
control and direct the individual who performs the
services, not only as to the result to be accomplished
by the work but also as to the details and means by
which that result is accomplished. That is, an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011