- 8 -
he “was actually selling * * * computer software, and it was used
for the operation of the businesses” to which he was making the
sales presentation. Petitioner’s employment does not fit the
specific categories of exceptions listed in section
3121(d)(3)(D). The evidence shows that petitioner was a common
law employee under section 3121(d)(2).
Some of the relevant factors used to decide whether an
individual is a common law employee are: (1) The degree of
control exercised by the principal over the details of the
individual’s work, (2) the individual's investment in facilities,
(3) the individual's opportunity for profit or loss,
(4) permanency of the relationship between the parties, (5) the
principal's right of discharge, (6) whether the work performed is
an integral part of the principal's business, (7) what
relationship the parties believe they are creating, and (8) the
provision of employee benefits. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Darden, supra at 323-324; NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390
U.S. 254, 258 (1968); Simpson v. Commissioner, supra at 984-985;
Hathaway v. Commissioner, supra; see also sec. 31.3121(d)-
1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs. No one factor is determinative.
Instead, all of the facts and circumstances of the relationship
must be weighed. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra at
324; NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., supra at 258; Ewens &
Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 270; Hathaway v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011