- 10 -
All that is necessary is that the principal have the right
to control the details of the person's work. McGuire v. United
States, 349 F.2d 644, 646 (9th Cir. 1965); Thomas Kiddie, M.D.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 1055, 1058 (1978). It is not
necessary for the principal actually to exercise that control.
Potter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-356.
"Where the inherent nature of the job mandates an
independent approach, a lesser degree of control exercised by the
principal may result in a finding of an employer-employee
status." Youngs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-94, affd.
without published opinion 98 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1996); Potter v.
Commissioner, supra.
To retain the requisite control over the details of an
individual's work, the employer need not stand over the
individual and direct every move made by the individual; it is
sufficient if the employer has the right to do so. Weber v.
Commissioner, supra at 388. Similarly, the employer need not set
the employee's hours or supervise every detail of the work
environment to control the employee. Gen. Inv. Corp. v. United
States, 823 F.2d 337, 342 (9th Cir. 1987). Workers who set their
own hours are not necessarily independent contractors. Id.;
Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 270.
The record shows that Peerless dictated petitioner's
compensation and expense reimbursement. The description of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011