- 11 -
the services are performed; it is sufficient if he has
the right to do so. The right to discharge is 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
an independent contractor. * * *
In deciding whether a worker is a common law employee or an
independent contractor, this Court considers: (1) The degree of
control exercised by the principal; (2) which party invests in
the work facilities used by the individual; (3) the opportunity
of the individual for 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 that the parties believed
that they were creating. Ewens & Miller. Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra at 270; Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387. All of the
facts and circumstances of each case are considered, and no
single factor is dispositive. Ewens & Miller. Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 270; Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387.
While no single factor is dispositive, the degree of control
exercised by the principal over the details of the individual’s
work is one of the most important factors in determining whether
a common law employment relationship exists. See, e.g.,
Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011