- 19 -
he did not have a budget; he was not required to work a certain
number of hours or particular days of the week; and he held
positions with other noncompeting companies in 2000. The absence
of control indicates the absence of an employee-employer
relationship after December 31, 1999.
(2) Investment in Facilities
The fact that a worker provides his or her own tools
generally indicates a nonemployee status. Ewens & Miller, Inc.
v. Commissioner, supra at 271. Petitioner testified after
December 31, 1999, he worked primarily for i2 at home using his
own computer and telephone. Petitioner did not produce evidence
indicating i2 provided a facility to work, equipment, supplies,
or money for work-related expenses such as travel and phone
usage. This factor is not indicative of an employee-employer
relationship between i2 and petitioner after December 31, 1999.
(3) Opportunity for Profit or Loss
A worker’s opportunity to earn a profit and assume risk of
loss may indicate a nonemployee relationship. Simpson v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974, 988 (1975). On the other hand,
earning an hourly wage or salary indicates an employee-employer
relationship exists. Del Monico v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-92; Kumpel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-265.
After December 31, 1999, i2 did not pay petitioner either a
salary or an hourly wage. Petitioner testified his compensation
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