- 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