Gary Lee Colvin - Page 25




                                       - 25 -                                         
          that TIG performed computer training and installed networking               
          cable and telephone systems.  As a result, petitioner argues that           
          he “was not a key connection with customers, only one of many               
          resources available to them”, and was therefore not an integral             
          part of TIG’s business.  However, the fact that TIG had several             
          separate divisions does not affect the analysis of whether                  
          petitioner’s services were integral to TIG.  Petitioner’s                   
          services could have been integral to the division in which he               
          worked, which would indicate that petitioner was an employee.               
          See Ewens & Miller, Inc., v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. at 272-273.             
               Respondent was silent on the issue.  The Court concludes               
          that this factor is neutral and indicates neither independent               
          contractor status nor employee status.                                      
                    6. Permanency of the Relationship                                 
               A transitory work relationship may weigh in favor of                   
          independent contractor status.  Ewens & Miller, Inc. v.                     
          Commissioner, supra at 273 (citing Herman v. Express Sixty-                 
          Minutes Delivery Serv., Inc., 161 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 1998)).           
          The principal’s right to discharge the worker, and the worker’s             
          right to quit, at any time, is an important factor.  Id.                    
          Petitioner’s position at TIG was for renewable 1-year terms.  It            
          was also at will and terminable by either party at any time, with           
          or without cause or notice, and petitioner was in fact                      
          terminated.  The Court concludes that petitioner’s position was             







Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007