- 18 -
invests in work facilities used by the individual; (3) the
opportunity of the individual to realize profit or loss; (4)
whether the principal can discharge the individual; (5) whether
the work is part of the principal’s regular business; (6) the
permanency of the relationship; and (7) the relationship the
parties believed they were creating. Ewens & Miller, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 263, 270 (2001); Weber v. Commissioner,
103 T.C. 378, 387 (1994), affd. 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995);
Potter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-356. No single factor is
dispositive. Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
(1) Degree of Control
The “degree of control” test requires the Court to examine
not only the control exercised by an alleged employer, but also
the degree to which the alleged employer may intervene to impose
control. Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387-388.
Petitioner testified he was constrained by the same controls
and expectations while operating as an adviser as during his
position as senior vice president of marketing. The record does
not establish that i2 exercised control or had the capacity to
impose control over petitioner after his retirement on December
31, 1999. On the contrary, the record indicates i2 lacked
control because petitioner did not have the same responsibilities
after December 31, 1999; his previous position was filled by
another i2 employee; he no longer had an office with the company;
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011