-24-
See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-325
(1992); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378, 386 (1994), affd.
60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995); sec. 1.421-1(h), Income Tax Regs.;
see also sec. 3401(c). Our decision is a question of fact, see
Profl. & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d 751,
753 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 89 T.C. 225 (1987); Ellison v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 142 (1970), and we are guided by certain
factors, none of which is dispositive in and of itself. These
factors are: (1) The degree of control exercised by the
principal over the details of the work, (2) the taxpayer’s
investment in the facilities used in the work, (3) the taxpayer’s
opportunity for profit or loss, (4) the permanency of the
relationship between the parties to a working relationship,
(5) the principal’s right of discharge, (6) whether the work
performed is an integral part of the principal’s business,
(7) what relationship the parties to a working relationship
believe they are creating, and (8) the provision of employee
benefits. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra; NLRB v.
United Ins. Co., 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968); Profl. & Executive
Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Ewens & Miller, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 263, 270 (2001); Weber v. Commissioner,
supra. We analyze these factors seriatim.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007