- 19 -
Commissioner, supra at 387 (the degree of control necessary to
find employee status varies with the nature of the services
provided). Mrs. Speltz provided a sufficient level of direction
and control for Mr. Speltz to perform his required duties under
the circumstances. We find on the record that Mrs. Speltz had
the right to control Mr. Speltz.
In addition to the control factor, other factors support
petitioners’ employer-employee characterization. For instance,
Mrs. Speltz’s calendar notations during the years at issue
confirm that Mr. Speltz consistently worked for the daycare, she
paid Mr. Speltz in employee benefits, Mr. Speltz’s work was
integral to the daycare’s operation, Mr. Speltz was trained to
work in childcare, and petitioners’ employment contract evidences
petitioners’ intent to create an employer-employment arrangement.
See generally Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490
U.S. 730, 751-752 (1989).
Moreover, this case is distinguishable from cases finding
that no employer-employee relationship existed among family
members, usually where the taxpayers failed to substantiate the
services provided. See, e.g., Shelley v. Commissioner, supra
(taxpayer did not document any services the taxpayer’s spouse
performed); Martens v. Commissioner, supra (little to no records
substantiated the services provided). Petitioners substantiated
the tasks Mr. Speltz performed in detail.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011