- 14 -
compensation. With respect to a statutory employee, the parties
would likely have this same right. Therefore, we accord this
factor little or no weight.
6. Integral Part of Business
Manulife is in the business of selling its products. Sales
representatives, such as petitioner, are Manulife’s key
connection with its customers. This factor supports a finding
that petitioner was an employee of Manulife. See Lewis v.
Commissioner, supra.
7. Relationship Parties Believe They Created
Petitioner contends that he was a statutory employee. On
the Forms W-2, however, Manulife did not mark the statutory
employee box. Further, Manulife paid the applicable payroll
taxes and did not issue a Form 1099. The withholding of such
taxes by Manulife is consistent with a finding that petitioner
was an employee. See Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d 74, 78 (8th
Cir. 1968); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 392.
This factor would support a finding that petitioner was an
employee.
8. Employee Benefits
Petitioner participated in Manulife’s pension plan and
deferred compensation plan. Moreover, petitioner received health
benefits through Manulife’s group health insurance plan.
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