- 9 -
Therefore, we must first determine whether petitioner was a
common law employee during the years in issue.11
For purposes of section 62(a), subtitle A of the Code does
not define “employee”. Under these circumstances, we apply
common law rules to determine whether an individual is an
employee. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-
325 (1992); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378, 386 (1994),
affd. 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995). Whether an individual is a
common law employee is a question of fact. Profl. & Executive
Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1988),
affg. 89 T.C. 225 (1987); Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974,
984 (1975). Among the relevant factors in determining the nature
of an employment relationship are the following: (1) The degree
of control exercised by the principal over the details of the
work; (2) the taxpayer’s investment in the facilities used in the
work; (3) the taxpayer’s opportunity for profit or loss; (4) the
permanency of the relationship between the parties; (5) the
principal’s right of discharge; (6) whether the work performed is
an integral part of the principal’s business; (7) what
relationship the parties believe they are creating; and (8) the
provision of employee benefits. NLRB v. United Ins. Co., 390
U.S. 254, 258 (1968); Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v.
11 The parties agree that petitioner otherwise qualifies as
a full-time life insurance salesman pursuant to sec.
3121(d)(3)(B).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011