- 21 -
test” for the employer-employee relationship. Weber v.
Commissioner, supra at 387. “The employment relationship exists
when the principal retains the right to direct the manner in
which the work is done, and to control the methods used in doing
the work, and to control the details and means by which the
desired result is accomplished.” Ellison v. Commissioner, 55
T.C. 142, 152-153 (1970). In order to obtain the requisite
degree of control, “the alleged employer need not ‘stand over the
employee and direct every move that he makes.’” Simpson v.
Commissioner, supra at 985 (citing Atl. Coast Life Ins. Col. v.
United States, 76 F. Supp. 627, 630 (E.D.S.C. 1948). In fact,
the employer need not set the employee’s hours. Workers who set
their own hours are not necessarily independent contractors.
Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 270.
In his argument that petitioner was a common law employee,
respondent relies predominately on the employment agreement and
the TIG Employee Handbook Manual (employee manual). Respondent
contends that TIG controlled the details of petitioner’s work
because the employment agreement provides that the “Employee
shall perform such duties as are customarily performed by an
Account Executive, and such other duties as the President of
Employer * * * may require from time to time”. Respondent then
asserts, based on the employee manual, that “Such duties include
TIG’s requirement that Petitioner attend weekly meetings. TIG
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007