Frederick Douglas Abdullah - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Simpson            
          v. Commissioner, supra.  No one factor is determinative; rather,            
          all the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and                  
          weighed.  NLRB v. United Ins. Co., supra.                                   
               Upon a review of these factors, we conclude that petitioner            
          was an employee of each of the four principals for which he                 
          performed services in 2001.                                                 
               We first look to the degree of control exercised by the                
          principals.  The principals controlled the manner in which                  
          petitioner performed his work.  With respect to his work as a               
          pipefitter, petitioner was given specific jobs to do, and the               
          work was reviewed and inspected.  To retain the requisite control           
          over the details of an individual’s work, the employer need not             
          stand over the individual and direct every move made; it is                 
          sufficient that the employer has the right to do so.  Weber v.              
          Commissioner, supra at 388.  We are satisfied that all four of              
          the principals possessed the requisite degree of control over               
          petitioner.  This factor supports a finding that petitioner was             
          an employee.                                                                
               We next consider the extent of petitioner’s investment in              
          the facilities used at work.  While petitioner used some of his             
          own tools, in the pipefitting activity, the large majority of               
          equipment was owned by the respective principals.  With respect             
          to the his work as a truck driver, there is no evidence that                






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