- 12 -
exists a contract or similar arrangement between the corporation
and the person or entity using the services which recognizes the
corporation’s right to direct or control the work of the service
provider. Haag v. Commissioner, supra at 611; Johnson v.
Commissioner, supra at 891; see also Leavell v. Commissioner, 104
T.C. 140, 151-152 (1995). We discuss these requirements next.
a. Whether Petitioners Were Employees of Their
Corporations
Petitioners were employees of their corporations because
they were officers of those corporations. See secs. 3121(d)(1),
1401, 1402; Robinson v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 308, 320-322
(2001).
b. Whether Contracts Existed Between Petitioners
and Their Corporations Recognizing the Rights of
the Corporations To Direct or Control Their
Performance of Services
Petitioners make no argument on this point. There is no
evidence of a contract or similar arrangement between Mr. Arnold
and Pacific or between Pacific and its clients. Thus,
petitioners have not shown that Pacific controlled Mr. Arnold’s
performance of services.
Similarly, there is no evidence that Mrs. Arnold contracted
with her corporation to perform real estate services or that EAPC
contracted with clients to perform real estate services. The
contracts between Mrs. Arnold and Seal and Seal’s records with
respect to Mrs. Arnold’s real estate sales and commissions show
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011