- 20 -
4. Investment in Facilities Used in the Work
RHB provided petitioner with office space, copiers, computer
systems, and other equipment. Petitioners do not argue
petitioner made any investment in the facilities or equipment.
Petitioner argues this was “merely part of the arrangement among
the RHB trustees, and that was part of the administrative and
support services that RHB provided to the individual RHB
trustees.” Petitioner argues that the arrangement was entered
into by the “individual RHB trustees” to save administrative
costs. Regardless of why the arrangement was entered into, the
fact remains that RHB provided all of the facilities, equipment,
and administrative services. This factor supports a finding that
petitioner was an employee of RHB.
5. Petitioner’s Opportunity for Profit or Loss
Petitioners argue that “Petitioner’s affiliation with RHB
greatly enhanced Petitioner’s prospects for earning greater
trustee’s fees vis-a-vis the trustee’s fees he would earn if he
conducted his trustee business on his own.” Contrary to
petitioner’s argument, petitioner’s opportunity for profit was
limited. Petitioner’s salary and bonuses were fixed by RHB, and
he was required to remit all trustee’s fees to RHB. While
increased productivity could lead to a raise or larger bonuses in
the future, petitioner could not directly increase his profit by
earning additional trustee’s fees. Petitioner did participate in
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