- 6 -
Generally such relationship exists when the person for
whom services are performed has the right to control
and direct the individual who performs the services,
not only as to the result to be accomplished by the
work but also as to the details and means by which that
result is accomplished. That is, an employee is
subject to the will and control of the employer not
only as to what shall be done but how it shall be done.
In this connection, it is not necessary that the
employer actually direct or control the manner in which
the services are performed; it is sufficient if he has
the right to do so. The right to discharge is also an
important factor indicating that the person possessing
that right is an employer. Other factors
characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily
present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and
the furnishing of a place of work, to the individual
who performs the services. In general, if an
individual is subject to the control or direction of
another merely as to the result to be accomplished by
the work and not as to the means and methods for
accomplishing the result, he is an independent
contractor. * * *
See also sec. 31.3401(c)-1(b), Employment Tax Regs.
We consider the following factors in deciding whether a
worker is a common law employee or an independent contractor:
(1) The degree of control exercised by the principal; (2) which
party invests in the work facilities used by the worker; (3) the
opportunity of the worker for profit or loss; (4) whether the
principal can discharge the worker; (5) whether the work is part
of the principal’s regular business; (6) the permanency of the
relationship; and (7) the relationship the parties believed they
were creating. Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
263, 270 (2001); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378, 387 (1994),
affd. per curiam 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995). We consider all
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008