- 11 - OPINION I. Employees v. Independent Contractors Petitioner contends that for employment tax purposes during the periods at issue the drivers of its trucks were independent contractors, not employees. The taxpayer has the burden of proving the existence of an independent contractor relationship.18 See Rule 142(a); Ellison v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 142, 152 (1970). For the purposes of employment taxes, the term “employee” includes “any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee”. Sec. 3121(d)(2); secs. 31.3121(d)-1(c), 31.3306(i)-1, Employment Tax Regs. Whether an individual is a common law employee is a question of fact, Ellison v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 142, 152 (1970); sec. 31.3121(d)-1(c)(3), Employment Tax Regs., to be determined applying the following factors: (1) The degree of control exercised by the principal; (2) which party invests in work facilities used by the individual; (3) the opportunity of the individual to realize profit or loss; (4) whether the principal can discharge the individual; (5) whether the work is part of the 18 Petitioner did not contend that the burden of proof was placed upon respondent pursuant to act sec. 530(e)(4) as added by the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-188, sec. 1122(b)(3), 110 Stat. 1767.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007