- 3 - the Commissioner, by applying the common-law definition of who is an employer of whom. Looking to employment tax cases for analogies, the Commissioner asserts that Pavich is an employee of the person for whom he performs the services, and who has the right to control and direct him--not only as to the result he is to reach, but also as to the details and means by which he reaches it. See sec. 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs. We are not so sure that the Commissioner is looking in the right place to find the meaning of “employee”. Section 912(2) actually uses the term “civilian officers or employees of the Government of the United States.” These terms aren’t defined by tax law, but their use is quite common in federal personnel law, most of which is found in title 5 of the U.S. Code. It is title 5 that has general definitions of these terms (which are, to be sure, limited to “this title” (i.e., title 5)). Section 2104 of title 5 defines an “officer” as a justice or judge of the United States and an individual who is-- (1) required by law to be appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity-- (A) the President; (B) a court of the United States; (C) the head of an Executive agency; or (D) the Secretary of a military department. Section 2105 of that title defines as an “employee” anyone who is an “officer,” plus an individual who is--Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011