- 17 - also an important factor indicating that the person possessing that right is an employer. Other factors characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and the furnishing of a place to work to the individual who performs the services. In general, if an individual is subject to the control or direction of another merely as to the result to be accomplished by the work and not as to the means and methods for accomplishing the result, he is not an employee. In United States v. W.M. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179, 194 (1970), the Supreme Court stated with respect to section 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs., which has language almost identical to section 31.3401(c)-1(b), that “the regulation provides a summary of the principles of the common law, intended as an initial guide for determination * * * [of] whether a relationship ‘is the legal relationship of employer and employee.’” The regulations applicable to this case, section 31.3401(c)-1(b), Employment Tax Regs., adopt the common law test for purposes of determining when an employee-employer relationship exists.17 Taylor v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 124, 127 (1978). Whether an individual is a common law employee is a question of fact,18 to be determined applying the following factors: (1) The degree of control exercised by the principal; (2) which party 17 An exception to the common law test may apply in situations involving leaves of absence. See sec. 1.421-7(h)(2), Income Tax Regs. 18 Ellison v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 142, 152 (1970).Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011