- 13 -
F. Integral Part of Business
Peerless and Big Train are in the business of selling their
products. Sales representatives, such as petitioner, are their
key connection with their customers. This factor supports a
finding that petitioner was an employee of Peerless and Big
Train. See Lewis v. Commissioner, supra.
G. Relationship Parties Believe They Created
Petitioner believes that she was a statutory employee. The
statutory employee boxes on the Forms W-2 from Peerless and Big
Train were not checked. Further, Peerless and Big Train withheld
applicable payroll taxes and did not issue Forms 1099 to
petitioner.
H. Employee Benefits
Peerless offered petitioner medical, dental, and vision
benefits upon completion of her 90-day probationary period.
There is no evidence in the record as to whether petitioner
received any benefits from Big Train.
Considering the record and weighing all the factors, the
Court concludes that petitioner was a common law employee under
section 3121(d)(2) and, therefore, was not a statutory employee
under section 3121(d)(3). Petitioner is not entitled to report
gross income and deduct expenses on Schedule C. Respondent is
sustained on this issue.
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