- 19 -
a salary, issued biweekly paychecks, and withheld taxes including
Social Security. The fact that the salary was not broken down
into payments for fiduciary and nonfiduciary services weighs
against petitioners’ hybrid relationship argument.
This factor supports a finding that petitioner was an
employee of RHB.
3. Whether the Work Is Part of the Principal’s Business
Petitioners argue that RHB was in the business of providing
individual fiduciaries with office space, equipment, and
administrative services. Petitioners further argue that RHB
could not be in the business of providing fiduciary services
because it was not licensed to do so.
The parties stipulated and we so found that RHB was formed
to provide administrative, management, and investment services
for fiduciaries and others, to the extent permitted by law. This
does not establish that RHB’s business was limited to providing
those services to individual fiduciaries. It is clear that RHB
was in the business of providing clients with fiduciary services.
The fact that RHB as an entity could not render fiduciary
services and that it relied on individual fiduciaries to provide
those services does not change the nature of its business.
Petitioner is a professional fiduciary. His services as such
were an integral part of RHB’s business. This factor supports a
finding that petitioner was an employee of RHB.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011