Juan Ramirez - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          of the facts and circumstances of each case, and no single factor           
          is determinative.  Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at           
          270; Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387.                                   
               Although not the exclusive inquiry, the degree of control              
          exercised by the principal over the worker is the crucial test in           
          determining the nature of a working relationship.  See Clackamas            
          Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 448               
          (2003); Matthews v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 351, 361 (1989), affd.            
          907 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1990).  To retain the requisite degree             
          of control over an employee, the employer need not direct the               
          employee’s every move; it is sufficient if he has the right to do           
          so.  Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 387; see sec. 31.3401(c)-              
          1(b), Employment Tax Regs.  In this case, petitioner controlled             
          each job site, delegated responsibilities, and directed each of             
          his worker’s actions to varying degrees based on the individual             
          worker’s respective experience.  This factor denotes the                    
          existence of an employment relationship.                                    
               If a worker provides his own tools to perform a task for his           
          principal, this may indicate that the worker is an independent              
          contractor.  See Breaux & Daigle, Inc. v. United States, 900 F.2d           
          49, 53 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Silk, 331 U.S.              
          704, 706 (1947)).  In this case, although the workers often used            
          their own tools to perform jobs for petitioner, petitioner                  
          provided all materials for each job and reimbursed his workers              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008