- 16 -
3. Opportunity for Profit or Loss
Respondent determined that petitioner paid the workers in
cash every week. Although Ms. Rudd summarily disputed
respondent’s determination, she provided no credible evidence of
petitioner’s finances and expenditures for 2000 or 2001. In
contrast, the deemed admissions establish that petitioner paid
the individuals by the hour, week, or month for their services,
that petitioner did not pay the workers by the job or on
commission, and that the workers did not participate in the
profit or loss resulting from their services.
This factor favors an employment relationship.
4. Right To Discharge
The deemed admissions establish that petitioner had the
right to hire and fire each of the workers. Petitioner did not
introduce any credible evidence to the contrary.
This factor favors an employment relationship.
5. Petitioner’s Regular Business
Ms. Rudd testified that the services performed at
petitioner’s location during 2000 and 2001 were the same kind of
services that petitioner offered in 1999. Petitioner’s regular
business in 1999 was the operation of a muffler shop. Petitioner
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007