- 12 -
2. Investment in Facilities
During the years in issue, petitioner worked out of
Manulife’s Irvine office, which was his only work location.
Indeed, petitioner’s business contact information listed the
Irvine office as his business address.
Moreover, Manulife employed at its Irvine office two support
employees to assist petitioner in his sales activities. Manulife
was responsible for hiring, supervising, and paying these
employees. Although petitioner provided his own computer and fax
machine, he was not otherwise responsible for any business
expenses associated with this office, including rent, office
supplies, equipment, and furniture.
This factor strongly suggests that petitioner was an
employee of Manulife.
3. Opportunity for Profit or Loss
Petitioner received commissions based on his sales
performance. Manulife also reimbursed petitioner for his
business expenses up to an annual limit.
Compensation on a commission basis is entirely consistent
with an employer-employee relationship. Tex. Carbonate Co. v.
Phinney, 307 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1962); Capital Life & Health
Ins. Co. v. Bowers, 186 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1951). While
petitioner conceivably could have suffered some loss as a result
of his sales activities, he may still be an employee under the
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