- 10 -
petitioner had any investment in the trucking business. The
trucks and equipment for delivery was owned by the principal.
Petitioner had no investment in any of the facilities where he
performed work. This factor is strongly in favor of treating
petitioner as an employee.
The next factor is opportunity for profit or loss.
Petitioner received pay based on the hours worked as a pipefitter
and was paid based on the routes driven as a truck driver.
Petitioner had no risk of loss. Petitioner had no opportunity to
increase his profit. This factor supports a finding that
petitioner was an employee.
The next factor is the permanency of the relationship.
During the tax year 2001 petitioner worked for four different
principals. It does not appear that any of these relationships
had any permanency. This factor would support a finding in favor
of petitioner’s being treated as an independent contractor.
We next consider the principal’s right to discharge. It is
clear that petitioner could be discharged by any of the
principals involved. The respective principals had total control
of the decision to terminate employment. This factor strongly
supports a finding that petitioner was an employee.
The next factor is whether petitioner was an integral part
of the business of the principal. Petitioner performed
pipefitting work for principals that provided these services and
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