Juan Ramirez - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Hernandez was paid by check in November and December 2003 in                
          amounts slightly more or less than $500.  Petitioner also paid              
          Hernandez $7,550 in cash throughout 2003.  Petitioner’s payments            
          to his workers were based on work performed generally, but he               
          paid his workers the same basic amount weekly even when there was           
          a lack of work in his waterproofing business in general or a lag            
          in the amount of work required of them individually.  Petitioner            
          also provided bonus checks to all three workers on December 24,             
          2003.  Petitioner’s workers generally received the same regular             
          payments regardless of how much money was being taken in by                 
          petitioner from his customers.  This lack of an opportunity for             
          profit or loss on the part of petitioner’s workers is consistent            
          with an employment relationship.                                            
               Petitioner maintained a substantial degree of control over             
          his workers and the job sites in general.  The most reasonable              
          inference from the evidence is that he would have been able to              
          hire or fire his workers at will, regardless of whether he ever             
          exercised that right.                                                       
               Petitioner’s regular business was the waterproofing industry           
          with which he and his workers were involved during 2003.                    
          Petitioner’s workers were regularly employed by petitioner in               
          2003 and worked on petitioner’s many different job sites                    
          throughout the year.  Although the workers asserted at trial that           
          they were independent contractors, their testimony on other                 

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

Last modified: March 27, 2008