Images in Motion of El Paso, Inc. - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         
          consider.  See Maggie Mgmt. Co. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. at 443;           
          Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 471 (1993), affd. in part,            
          revd. in part and remanded on another issue 43 F.3d 172 (5th Cir.           
          1995).  On this point, it was the Appeals officer’s review of the           
          facts that led him to conclude that “the common law factors do              
          not support a finding that the taxpayer had the right to control            
          and direct the work of the instructors as to the details and                
          means by which they accomplished their work.”                               
               The facts do not support respondent’s position that the                
          examining agent had insufficient information to accept                      
          petitioner’s worker classification or that the facts indicated              
          petitioner’s worker classification was incorrect.  The                      
          examining agent determined that petitioner’s dance instructors              
          were employees after considering three factors--(1) behavioral              
          control, (2) financial control, and (3) the relationship of the             
          parties.4  The examining agent determined the behavioral control            

               4This Court generally considers seven factors in deciding              
          whether a worker is an independent contractor or a common law               
          employee.  See, e.g., Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, 117             
          T.C. 263, 269 (2001); Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v.                   
          Commissioner, 89 T.C. 225, 233 (1987) (reviewing the following              
          factors to decide the existence of an employment relationship:              
          (1) The degree of control exercised over the details of the work;           
          (2) investment in the work facilities; (3) opportunity for profit           
          or loss; (4) whether the type of work is part of the principal's            
          regular business; (5) right to discharge; (6) permanency of the             
          relationship; and (7) the relationship the parties think they are           
          creating), affd. 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988).  The Appeals                 
          officer’s review of this case relied on the 20 common law                   
          factors.  Rev. Rul. 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 296.  His analysis shows             
          that the 20 common law factors, when not condensed into only                
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011