Discussion

Ewens and miller v. Commm, 117 T.C. 263 (2001)

IN FINGING that BAKERY WORKERS and CASH PAY PAYROLLLLLS Weere Common Law Employees, The TAX COURT Stated Thater A Worker is a Common Law Employee or An Independent Contt Ractor, for Employment Tax Purposes, TAX COURT CONSIDERS: (1) DEGREE of Control Exercised byThe Principal, (2) Which Party Invests in Work Facilities used by the worker, (3) Opportonity of the worker for propit or loss, (4) WHETHER Principal Can disc The worker, (5) WHETHER Work is Part of Principal's Regular Business(6) PerManence of Relationship, and (7) Relationship Parties Beliefed they we creating. 26 u.s.c.a. 3121 (d). "The case also discusseScusses statutory embroyeees.

Avis rent a car system. Inc. v. United states, 503 F.2D 423 (2D CIR. 1974)

Car Shuttlers Were Employees, Despite The Transient Nature of their Relationship with the Employer. . v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947) and Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S.126 (1947) IncludingWorking in the course of the service recipient's business (INTEGRATION).

The Importance of Avoiding Single-Fact Analysis is Stresset in this case. FACTS CONSIDERED Relevant Include: 1) The right to control the manner in whild work Ormed, 2) Substantial Investment, 3) Expenses, 4) Ability to propit, 5)SPECIAL SKILLS, 6) PerManence, and 7) WHETHER the Services Performd by the worker we part of the principal's regular business activity.

Ellison v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 142, 144, 153, 156 (1970) ACQ. 1971–2 C.B. 2

A worker was an employee of a life insury company and this a stock object by the company was a restricted stock option. Any with respect to the terms of the working agreses.Opportonity to exceIl own their owin fachs in the business of the Employer DOES NEGATE the EMPLOYMENT Relationship. The count found that a proveision in E controlting theRE was no employment relayip was not significant.

McGuire v. United States, 349 F.2D 644, 646 (9th cir. WA 1965)

TRUCK Unloaders ("Swampers") Required Little Supervision BeCAUSE The Nature of the Work WAS Uncomplicated and They WERE General Familia With the Procedures O. f the job. "The Absence of Need to Control Should Not Being with The Absence of Right to Control. The The THEIndore Investment. The The they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the theyAgra Investment. The the theySimla Wealth Management. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they. The the they.Right to Control CONTMPLATED by the Regulations Relevant Here and the Common Law As an Incident of Employment Requires only Supervision as the nature of the work quires. "

James v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 1296, 1301 (1956)

A doctor was an emblayee of hostals for which the performed services. UCT The Duties of their Positions Must Newsarily Be More Tenuus and General THE Control Over NonProfessional Employees."[[T] He General Control of the Hospitals Over Petitioner ... Coupled with the Controls Over His Method Furnished by the High Standards of His PROFESSION ... ., are sufficient to constitute petitioner an employeeeer than an independentcontractor. ""

Professional and Executive Leasing, Inc. V. Commissioner, 862 F.2D 751 (9th Cir. 1988)

A case similar to James Above -Both Cases Focus on the Right to Control the Manner in Which the work of highly Skilled Professionals is Performed.

Alsco Storm Windows, Inc. V. United States, 311 F. 2D 341, 343 (9th Cir. WA 1962)

Although No One Factor is Controlling, The Test usually considerted functional is who the person for other. Ities of the indendent whose status is at key, not only as to the results, but also as to theMeans and method to be used for accomplishing the results.

National Insurance Co., V. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)

IN this case undertle I of the EmployeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeErity Security Act of 1974 (Erisa), The Supreme Court Heeld That Traditation Law Concepts Should Be U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U SED to Interpret The Term "Employee" ABSEENT Legislative Direction to the Contatic.

Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378 (1994), Aff'd Per Curiam 60 F.3D 1104 (4th cir. 1995)

The Importance of Sall Factual Differencess is Apparent in Weber, a method was held to be an employee. Compare with shelley.

Shelley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-432

The Importance of Sall Factual Differencess is Apparent in Shelley, a Clergyman in Another Denomination was held to be an independent contractor. Compare with weber.

GREY V. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 121 (2002), Aff’D, in Unpublished Opinion, 93 fed.appx. 473 (3rd Cir 2004)

This case analys the employment status of an indictant who is the present and soleholder of a corporation under IRC 3121 (d) (1), and concludes that the I NDIVIDUAL PERFORFORMED Services for The Corporation in their Capacity as President, and therefore, was an an annerEmployee for Employment Tax Purposes Under IRC 3121 (D) (1).

Kenney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-431

The Tax Court Noted that the Business' Intent Was Inconsisisisteent with the Substance of the Employment Relationship and What the PARTIES ACTULLY KNEW the Rel ATIONSHIP to Be. The Count Found that the Business KNew that the Workers We Employees, But it Called them Independent Contractors BecauseThe Business Did Not Want to Pay Employment Taxes on them or Include Them in Employeee Benefit Plans.

VeterInary Surgical Consultans, P.C. V. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 141 (2001), Aff’d in Unpublished OPINION SUB NOM. Yeagle Drywall Co., COMMISSIONER, 54 Fed. AppxKolkata Stocks. 100 (3D CIR. 2002)

President of s Corporation was an Employee and amounts taxpayer paid him we was for purposes of feedral emblanement taxes. By Consulting and Sergical Services Performed by the President.The Tax Court Found that Taxpayer Had No Reasonable Basis for Treating the President As Other than An Employeeeeeeeee, TAXPAYER WAS Not Relief Under Sect Ion 530.

Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974 (1975)

The IRS SuccessFully Argued in this case that an insury agent was an independent contractor. Relevant Facts was: 1) DEGREE of Control Over Details; 2) Investm ENT in Facilities; 3) Opportonity for Profit or Loss; 4) Right to discharge; 5)WHETHER work is part of principal's regular business; 6) Permanency; and 7) The Relationship the PARTIES BELIES BELIEY Wey Creating.