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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: March 27, 2008