- 19 -
obtained. Matthews v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 351, 361 (1989),
affd. 907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
To retain the requisite control over the details of an
individual’s work, the principal need not stand over the
individual and direct every move made by the individual; it is
sufficient if he has the right to do so. Weber v. Commissioner,
103 T.C. at 388; Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 234; Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. at
985; Gierek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-642. Similarly, the
principal need not set the employee’s hours or supervise every
detail of the work environment to control the employee. Gen.
Inv. Corp. v. United States, 823 F.2d 337, 342 (9th Cir. 1987).
Mr. Urman was the COR to whom petitioner was directly
responsible. Mr. Urman assigned projects to petitioner, provided
policy guidance, and established general priorities. Mr. Urman
could not, however, alter or modify the personal service
contracts. Therefore, Mr. Urman could not assign projects that
required services other than those delineated in the contracts,
change petitioner’s hours, or transfer her to another department.
Petitioner was responsible for planning and carrying out the
projects delivered under the personal service contracts, with
little administrative direction. She was responsible for the
quality and technical accuracy of all services and work product.
Petitioner’s completed work was considered technically
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011