- 11 -
drove a truck for a delivery company. It seems clear that
petitioner’s services were an integral part of the business of
the respective principals. This factor supports the finding that
petitioner was an employee.
The next factor is the relationship the parties believe they
created. Each of the principals treated petitioner as an
employee. Petitioner was issued a Form W-2 by each principal,
and there was withholding from petitioner’s paycheck. See Azad
v, United States, 388 F.2d 74, 78 (8th Cir. 1968); Weber v.
Commissioner, supra at 392. This factor supports a finding that
petitioner was an employee.
The final factor is employee benefits. There is nothing in
this record as to any employee benefits paid by any of the
principals. This factor is neutral.
Considering all the factors, we conclude that petitioner was
a common law employee, and accordingly gross income from the four
employers involved should have been reported as salary or wages
on Form 1040 and not gross receipts on Schedules C. Further,
petitioner is not subject to self-employment tax as determined in
the notice of deficiency.
B. Expenses
Based on our conclusions above, it is clear that any expense
deductions claimed, if allowable, should be deducted as Schedule
A, Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions.
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