- 21 -
RHB’s profit-sharing plan. However, such an arrangement may also
be found in employer-employee relationships and does not by
itself weigh in favor of petitioners’ position.
There is no indication in the record that petitioner would
incur any loss if RHB ceased to be profitable. However,
petitioner could be held personally liable if he breached his
fiduciary duties to his clients. In this limited sense,
petitioner did bear some risk of loss.
This factor tends to support a finding that petitioner was
an employee of RHB, but its significance is mitigated by
petitioner’s participation in RHB’s profit-sharing plan and his
potential personal liability.
6. The Permanency of the Relationship and the Right To
Discharge
The permanency of a relationship indicates an employer-
employee relationship, while a transitory relationship does not.
Levine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-86; Hathaway v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-389. Additionally, the right to
discharge a worker and the worker’s right to quit at any time
indicate an employer-employee relationship. Levine v.
Commissioner, supra. Under the employment agreement, the
relationship between petitioner and RHB was indefinite, subject
to the termination provision. Under the termination provision,
RHB had the right to discharge petitioner with 60 days’ notice
without cause or immediately with cause. Petitioner had the
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