- 16 - control. See Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 388; James v. Commissioner, supra at 1301. Many of the facts and circumstances of this case demonstrate RHB exerted control over petitioner. RHB, Mr. Rice, and Mr. Heard supervised petitioner in the performance of his fiduciary duties until he became a shareholder and director, and petitioner was subject to annual review. Section 1 of the employment agreement required petitioner to perform duties as assigned to him by RHB and required him to perform such duties “subject always to fiduciary constraints and to the direction and control of the Board of Directors of [RHB]”. (Emphasis added.) RHB required petitioner to keep regular business hours. RHB required petitioner to keep other trustees informed of what he was doing. RHB’s investment committee reviewed all trust accounts, including those petitioner managed, three times per year and had to approve trades made by the fiduciaries. If the investment committee objected to the trade, the trade would not be placed even if the trustee of that trust objected. In 1991, Mr. Rice told petitioner that the fiduciaries were expected to follow the majority vote of the investment committee. RHB required petitioner to seek counseling, and Mr. Rice and the psychiatrist determined when the counseling would end. Petitioner often objected to the control asserted by RHB, and this dispute apparently led to petitioner’s termination andPage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011