- 8 -
for expenses incurred on the job. The materials for each job
were generally picked up at petitioner’s house by the workers,
although petitioner also sent them to other locations to pick up
materials, for which petitioner had already paid. Petitioner
maintained three trucks for his waterproofing business in 2003,
and his workers often used the trucks to drive to various job
sites and to perform their duties. Petitioner also provided all
three workers with cell phones and cell phone service in 2003.
These facts show that petitioner provided the general work
facilities for his workers. This factor denotes an employment
relationship.
We have held that, where a worker earns a salary and is
reimbursed for any expenses, he is not in a position to increase
his profit by his own actions and is not at a risk for loss. See
Weber v. Commissioner, supra at 390-391. In this case,
petitioner testified that, after netting out the cost of
materials, he split the payments he received from customers for
particular jobs among himself and his workers. Petitioner has
provided no documentation or testimony regarding how these
calculations were made or how he kept track of amounts owed to
the workers on particular jobs. The workers were usually paid
standard amounts on a weekly basis throughout 2003. With only
minor variance, Raul Ramirez was paid by check in mostly $600 and
$700 amounts. Carlos Ramirez was usually paid $500 by check.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008