T.C. Memo. 1996-531
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RICHARD G. AND ANNE C. GREENE, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5293-95. Filed December 2, 1996.
Frank Sommerville, for petitioners.
Sheri Wilcox, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case was assigned pursuant
to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and
182.1
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in
issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal
income tax for the taxable year 1992 in the amount of $998.
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner Richard G.
Greene, an Assemblies of God missionary, was an employee or an
independent contractor in 1992. The answer will determine
whether his expenses constitute deductible business expenses on
Schedule C under section 62(a)(1), or are miscellaneous itemized
deductions allowable on Schedule A under section 67 to the extent
that they exceed 2 percent of petitioners' adjusted gross income.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioners are husband and wife and resided in
Bangladesh at the time that their petition was filed with the
Court.2
1. General Background
Petitioner Richard G. Greene (petitioner) was licensed and
ordained as a minister of the National Assemblies of God Church
(the National Church) in May 1987 and May 1989, respectively.
Petitioner pastored an Assemblies of God church in Leesville,
Louisiana, at least from the time he became licensed until
December 1990, at which time he resigned as a pastor in order to
pursue a career as a missionary. During 1992, petitioner
performed services as an Assemblies of God missionary.
2
Pursuant to sec. 7482(b)(2), the parties stipulated that
the venue for purposes of an appeal from this decision will be
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- NEXTRECORD -
The National Church is a nonprofit corporation headquartered
in Springfield, Missouri. The National Church operates in
accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the General
Council of the Assemblies of God (Constitution and Bylaws). The
Constitution and Bylaws explain the National Church's internal
laws, structural organization, polity, and guiding policies.
These laws and policies are administered at the national level
through the General Council and its various agencies. The
General Council, which consists of a body of ordained ministers
and delegates of the affiliated local churches, is charged with
preserving and promoting established positions on the faith and
practice of the National Church. It meets biannually to conduct
the general business of the National Church and determine the
services that it will provide.
The laws and policies of the National Church are
administered at the district level through District Councils.
The United States is divided into 55 geographical District
Councils, which serve as the connecting link between the
affiliated local churches and the General Council. Local
churches apply for affiliation at the district level. Each
District Council, which is subordinate to the General Council,
consists of ordained ministers, licensed ministers, and delegates
from the local churches within the district. The District
Councils supervise all of the National Church's activities within
their prescribed field. The District Councils examine, approve,
- NEXTRECORD -
and recommend candidates who qualify as certified, licensed, and
ordained ministers.3 Final approval and issuance of ministerial
credentials, however, is made by the General Council's
credentials committee (the credentials committee).4 Petitioner
met all of the requirements set forth by the National Church, and
as indicated, is a licensed and ordained Assemblies of God
minister.
Individuals holding ministerial credentials are amenable to
both the District Council and the General Council in matters of
doctrine and conduct. Causes for the discipline of a minister
include: (1) Any moral failure involving sexual misconduct; (2)
any moral or ethical failure not involving sexual misconduct; (3)
general inefficiency in the ministry; (4) a failure to represent
the Pentecostal testimony correctly; (5) a contentious or
3
The bylaws of the National Church provide qualifications
for ministerial licensing and ordination. The bylaws provide,
inter alia, that in order to be licensed as a minister an
applicant must: (1) Have a thorough understanding of and be in
agreement with the National Church's doctrinal position as
contained in the Statement of Fundamental Truths; (2) have an
active loyalty to the National Church's constitutional
agreements, a cooperative spirit, and a readiness to seek and
receive the counsel of older brethren; (3) demonstrate religious
knowledge acquired through education or experience by passing a
standard test; and (4) be interviewed and recommended by a
district credentials committee.
Licensed ministers must meet additional requirements in
order to be ordained. For example, a licensed minister must
complete 2 consecutive years of full-time preaching ministry,
pass at least one written test, and submit to additional
interviews.
4
According to the constitution and bylaws, the credentials
committee consists of the Executive Presbytery.
- NEXTRECORD -
noncooperative spirit; (6) an assumption of dictatorial authority
over a church; (7) an arbitrary rejection of district counseling;
(8) a declared open change of doctrinal views; (9) habitual debt
that harms the church's reputation; and (10) a marriage in
violation of the church's stand on marriage and divorce. The
Credentials Committee has final authority in matters of doctrine
and the personal conduct of all ministers, including the power to
withdraw the approval and recommend the recall of ministerial
credentials.
2. Missionary Service
The National Church, as one of its stated missions, seeks to
promote and encourage world evangelization. Towards this end,
the National Church created the Division of Foreign Missions (the
DFM), an unincorporated agency, to coordinate foreign missionary
efforts. The DFM is supervised by the Foreign Missions Board,
and together they select, endorse, establish requirements, and
uphold standards for missionaries.
a. The Endorsement Process
The process of becoming an endorsed missionary is lengthy
and is handled primarily at the national level by the DFM and the
Foreign Missions Board. An individual applying for a missionary
position must submit an application, along with an autobiography,
character references, and transcripts to the DFM. The applicant
must obtain formal approval from his or her appropriate district
before the DFM will begin to process the application. After an
- NEXTRECORD -
applicant has obtained district approval and completed the
application, the DFM evaluates the application. At some point
during evaluation, a DFM representative conducts a home-interview
with the candidate. Finally, if all indications are favorable,
the DFM asks the candidate to travel to Springfield, Missouri,
for additional orientation, tests, and interviews. The
applicant's geographical foreign field location is defined in the
final interview. If the tests and interviews are satisfactory,
the DFM will recommend the candidate to the Foreign Missions
Board for endorsement.
b. The Missionary's 5-year Cycle
The National Church and the missionary candidates consider
missionary service to be a lifetime career. Missionary service,
however, is generally divided into repeating 5-year cycles.
Missionaries spend the first year in the cycle, frequently
referred to as the year of "deputational ministry", itinerating
local Assemblies of God churches seeking financial support for
the foreign mission. They spend the remaining 4 years in the
cycle ministering in the foreign field. At the conclusion of the
fourth year in the foreign field, missionaries return to the
United States and begin another year of deputational ministry,
thus initiating a new 5-year cycle.
The DFM provides no formal training with respect to
deputational ministry. Generally, missionaries solicit funds
from churches and individual donors through pledges that
- NEXTRECORD -
demonstrate the donor's commitment to support the missionary on a
monthly basis. The donor can pledge to support a missionary for
life, one 5-year cycle, or less; however, if support is limited
to one 5-year cycle or less, the missionary must visit the donor
during the next phase of deputational ministry in order to renew
the financial commitment. If a donor fails to provide the
pledged support, the DFM will not send a past due notice to or
make any other contact with the donor; rather, the individual
missionary is responsible for contacting the donor and re-
establishing the financial support. Deputational missionaries
may, at their own expense, hire individuals to assist them in
their fund-raising efforts.
The DFM provides donors with a receipt verifying the amount
of the pledge and certifying that the DFM, as an agency of the
National Church, is a tax-exempt organization. Contributions
made to and receipted by DFM are not personally owned by the
missionary, even though they may be designated for that
missionary's ministry. Rather, the DFM owns the funds raised by
the missionaries and maintains administrative control of such
funds. The DFM deposits contributions into an individual account
maintained for each missionary.
Missionaries must raise sufficient funds to support their
foreign ministry before the DFM will "clear" them for departure
to their foreign field. In this regard, the DFM prepares a
proposed budget for endorsed missionaries to use as a guideline
- NEXTRECORD -
in determining the amount of funding necessary to support their
foreign ministry needs. Deputational missionaries, however, are
not required to comply with the exact figures in the budget so
long as they obtain adequate funding for their ministry.
Deputational missionaries are required to file with the DFM
monthly "deputational reports" that detail the offerings received
and the expenses incurred by the missionary. Along with the
deputational report, missionaries forward the net cash offerings
and receipts verifying the offerings and expenses. Additionally,
during their deputational ministry, missionaries prepare a field
budget approximating the amount of mission-related expenses they
will incur in the foreign field. Once a missionary departs for
the foreign field, the DFM advances funds to the missionary from
his or her DFM missionary account to cover the anticipated
mission expenses. Missionaries in the foreign field are required
to file quarterly field reports with the DFM explaining how the
budget advances were spent.
During both deputational and foreign field ministry, the DFM
records the reported expenses and the pledges received on behalf
of the missionaries and mails monthly disbursement statements to
each missionary detailing the missionaries' total pledged support
and expenses.
Missionaries are free to resign at any time. However,
missionaries are not entitled to the balance of their DFM account
upon resignation. Rather, a resigning missionary may reallocate
- NEXTRECORD -
the funds in his or her foreign ministry account to another
missionary's ministry.
c. Compensation and Benefits
Missionaries are paid a monthly living allowance (a personal
allowance) from the funds secured by them in their year of
deputational ministry. The DFM sets an upward limit on the
personal allowance amount that missionaries may receive from
their respective accounts. The DFM does not guarantee
missionaries a minimum level of support. In fact, missionaries
have the power to designate any amount below the limit set by the
DFM as their personal allowance.
The DFM maintains an association group health care plan
administered by the Christian Fidelity Life Insurance Co.
(Christian Fidelity). The DFM informs missionaries with respect
to the plan but does not require them to participate in the plan.
The monthly premiums are transferred from each missionary's
account with DFM to Christian Fidelity. The disbursement reports
mailed to petitioner in 1992 indicate that petitioner
participated in the health insurance plan.
The DFM maintains a group retirement plan called the
"Minister's Benefit Association" (MBA) plan. The MBA plan allows
missionaries to defer a portion of their monthly living allowance
to the plan for retirement. The DFM does not require
missionaries to participate in the plan. The disbursement
- NEXTRECORD -
reports mailed to petitioner in 1992 indicate that petitioner
participated in the MBA plan.
The DFM has no official policy with respect to sick leave;
however, it does recommend that missionaries limit their vacation
days to 30 or fewer per year. Missionaries are not required to
report to the DFM either sick leave or vacation days taken.
Thus, the DFM does not maintain any records reflecting the days
and hours worked by its missionaries. Missionaries continue to
receive their personal allowance while on vacation and sick
leave.
d. Communication With the DFM
Apart from the monthly deputational and disbursement
reports, petitioner and the DFM communicated on an irregular
basis during his year of deputational ministry. The DFM did not
contact petitioner at all during that year, and petitioner called
the DFM only occasionally for information relating to shipping
his belongings to Bangladesh. Other than the quarterly field
reports and the monthly disbursement reports, there was no
regular form of communication between petitioner and the DFM
during his foreign field mission work.
The DFM requires missionaries to attend the "School of
Missions" during their deputation year of each 5-year cycle. The
School of Missions is not for training purposes; rather, it is a
"spiritual debriefing" for missionaries and their families that
have been exposed to foreign cultures for long periods of time.
- NEXTRECORD -
This is the only meeting that missionaries are required to
attend.
e. Disciplinary Matters
Disciplinary matters related to missionary status are
handled by the DFM. Causes for disciplinary action with respect
to missionary status include, inter alia: (1) Any conduct
unbecoming to a missionary as a representative of Christ and the
Assemblies of God; (2) loss of ministerial credentials with the
National Church; (3) indiscretions concerning morals; (4) failure
to properly manage and report the use of mission funds; (5) a
declared open change in doctrinal views or practices, resulting
in variance from those of the National Church, or deliberate
variance from the values, purposes, or objectives of DFM; and (6)
a contentious or noncooperative spirit.
The DFM has no authority to recall a missionary's
ministerial credentials. The most severe form of discipline that
the DFM can exercise is to withdraw its endorsement of, and
effectively disassociate itself from, a missionary. In the event
that the DFM withdraws an endorsement, the DFM notifies the
missionary's district, closes the missionary's account, and
returns to the donors any future offerings received on behalf of
the missionary.
- NEXTRECORD -
f. Unendorsed Missionaries
Ministers may serve as Assemblies of God missionaries
without official endorsement from the DFM. Assemblies of God
churches can and do financially support unendorsed Assemblies of
God missionaries. The DFM provides no assistance of any kind to
unendorsed missionaries; thus, unendorsed missionaries must
personally collect pledges, issue receipts, and maintain
financial records with respect to their foreign ministry.
g. The Missions Manual
The DFM has written and produced a missions manual (the
missions manual) containing both general and specific information
about foreign ministry. The DFM provides all endorsed
missionaries with a copy of the missions manual. The missions
manual provides information about the structure of the DFM, the
endorsement process, deputational ministry, budgeting, personal
allowances, disciplinary action, equipment, overseas freight and
shipping, health insurance, the pension program, children of
missionaries, foreign field housing, and vacation.
Jerry Burgess (Mr. Burgess) is a member of the Foreign
Missions Committee that is responsible for establishing foreign
mission practices and procedures and for implementing the
decisions of the Foreign Missions Board. Mr. Burgess also worked
as the financial comptroller of the DFM for 16 years. Mr.
Burgess testified at trial as follows:
- NEXTRECORD -
A: [The missions manual] is a guide. You know, if
Reverend Greene needs to know what he should do in
a certain situation that might relate to a move on
the field, or how he can best accomplish some part
of his ministry, a good place for him to go is to
the missions manual or ask another missionary on
the field, but essentially, it is a guide and a
broad set of parameters as to how the cooperative
relationship should work.
* * * * * * *
Q: Are the provisions of this manual enforceable
against a DFM missionary?
* * * * * * *
A: Well, the provisions of the manual relate to
the activities of missionaries. Most of those are
suggestions, anyway, and we don't even intend to
enforce them.
Some of the provisions in the manual define
the cooperative relationship between the
missionary and the Division of Foreign Missions,
and if that missionary chooses to be uncooperative
and to do things that are harmful or detract from
the work, then the manual spells out our
prerogative to disassociate ourselves from that
missionary, and we no longer have an obligation to
process his finances or to cooperate with him if
he won't cooperate with us.
Mr. Burgess' testimony, which we accept, also revealed: (1)
Many persons in top management positions of DFM have not read the
missions manual, and (2) the DFM considered missionaries to be
independent contractors, not employees.
The missions manual states that the DFM does not consider
their relationship with missionaries to be one of employer and
employee.
- NEXTRECORD -
3. Petitioner's Missionary Experience
In petitioner's final interview in Springfield, Illinois,
petitioner identified Bangladesh as the country in which he
wished to minister. The DFM expressed reservations about
petitioner's choice, but petitioner made the ultimate decision.
Petitioner began itinerating local churches and raised
approximately $600 in monthly support before he was officially
endorsed in 1992. Petitioner received a proposed budget from the
DFM detailing the amount necessary to sustain 4 years of foreign
ministry in Bangladesh; however, petitioner set a fund-raising
goal in excess of the amount proposed because he desired to do
things not accounted for in the proposed budget.
Petitioner maintained a routine schedule during his
deputational ministry. On Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings
petitioner ministered at Assemblies of God churches raising
support for his mission. The DFM did not require that petitioner
adhere to a particular schedule or method of fund-raising in his
year of deputational ministry. In deciding the best way to
prepare and present his deputational services on Sundays and
Wednesdays, petitioner talked with experienced missionaries and
coordinated with the pastor of the church that was hosting him.
Petitioner spent approximately 3 days per week locating and
contacting new churches to itinerate and writing thank-you notes
to donors. Petitioner also prepared and distributed a newsletter
to encourage donors to contribute towards his ministry.
- NEXTRECORD -
Occasionally petitioner hired individuals to assist him in
producing his newsletter; however, the assistants usually
declined payments for their services.
The DFM did not provide petitioner with an office, supplies,
support staff, car, or any other equipment to facilitate his
work. Petitioner used his personal car to itinerate local
churches and used his personal telephone to contact such
churches. Petitioner withheld these expenses from the pledges
received prior to forwarding the balance to the DFM.
Petitioner began receiving a personal allowance on December
31, 1991, in the amount of $1,125 per month. Petitioner was
eligible to receive a monthly allowance before that time;
however, he declined to receive his allowance for some time
because his wife was working and the family was able to meet its
expenses without depleting petitioner's missionary account with
the DFM.
Petitioner and his family departed for Bangladesh on March
30, 1993. The DFM did not assign petitioner to work on a
particular project in Bangladesh. Petitioner chose to become
involved in student ministry development in Bangladesh that
involves teaching classes in an Assemblies of God Bible School.
Petitioner also coordinates an outreach program where he
supervises students that are starting new churches in various
villages. Petitioner was not directly supervised or evaluated by
anyone from the DFM or elsewhere.
- NEXTRECORD -
While serving as a missionary, petitioner became aware of
widespread drug addiction in Bangladesh. Petitioner has traveled
to drug-infested areas in Bangladesh and has visited with many of
the drug-addicted individuals. Petitioner's experiences and
conversations with the local Bengalis have led petitioner to
believe that there is a need for a drug-rehabilitation program in
his area. In his next phase of deputational ministry, petitioner
plans to raise funds to sponsor such a program. Petitioner has
not informed the DFM of his interest in sponsoring a drug-
rehabilitation clinic and to the best of his knowledge, the DFM
is unaware of his activity in this area.
At the time of trial, petitioner intended to return to the
United States in June 1996 to begin his second phase of
deputational ministry. Although most missionaries serve 4 years
in the foreign field before returning to the United States,
petitioner planned to return after approximately 3 years. In
making this decision, petitioner considered the needs of his
school-aged children and the schedules of other missionaries in
his region. Additionally, petitioner was eager to begin
soliciting funds necessary to support his drug-rehabilitation
program. It appears that the DFM's involvement in planning
petitioner's field departure date was minimal and that petitioner
decided on his return date independent of the DFM.
Petitioner owns a copy of the missions manual, but he has
never actually referred to it in making his missionary decisions;
- NEXTRECORD -
rather, he has consulted fellow missionaries when he has had
questions about missionary activities.
4. Petitioners' Tax Return and the Notice of Deficiency
The National Church issued petitioner Form 1099-MISC. Such
Form reflected nonemployee compensation for services rendered and
indicated that Federal income tax was not withheld from that
compensation. Petitioner reported his missionary-related income
and expenses on Schedule C.
Respondent does not challenge the amount of petitioners'
claimed business expenses. Rather, in her notice of deficiency,
respondent determined that petitioner was an employee rather than
an independent contractor in 1992. As a result of this
determination, respondent reclassified the expenses claimed by
petitioner on his Schedule C as Schedule A expenses deductible
only as miscellaneous itemized deductions, subject to the 2-
percent limitation under section 67.
ULTIMATE FINDING OF FACT
Petitioner, an endorsed Assemblies of God missionary, was an
independent contractor in 1992.
OPINION
Petitioners contend that petitioner was an independent
contractor and, as such, was entitled to deduct the full amount
of his business expenses on Schedule C pursuant to section 162.
Respondent determined that petitioner was an employee during
1992. Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's
- NEXTRECORD -
determination is not correct. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Whether an individual is an independent contractor or a
common law employee is a question of fact. Professional &
Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d 751, 753 (9th
Cir. 1988), affg. 89 T.C. 225 (1987); Wolfe v. United States, 570
F.2d 278, 281-282 (8th Cir. 1978); Weber v. Commissioner, 103
T.C. 378, 386 (1994).
Among the relevant factors to consider in determining the
nature of a work relationship are the following: (1) The degree
of control exercised by the principal over the details of the
work; (2) which party invests in the facilities used in the work;
(3) the taxpayer's opportunity for profit or loss; (4) the
permanency of the relationship; (5) the principal's right of
discharge; (6) whether the work performed is an integral part of
the principal's business; (7) what relationship the parties
believe they are creating; and (8) the provision of benefits
typical of those provided to employees. NLRB v. United Ins. Co.,
390 U.S. 254, 258-259 (1968); Professional & Executive Leasing,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d at 753, 89 T.C. at 232; Weber v.
Commissioner, supra at 387; Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 974,
984-985 (1975). No one factor is determinative; rather, all the
incidents of the relationship must be weighed and assessed.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 324 (1992);
NLRB v. United Ins. Co., supra at 258; Azad v. United States, 388
- NEXTRECORD -
F.2d 74, 76 (8th Cir. 1968); Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at
387.
A. Degree of Control
The principal's right to control the manner in which the
taxpayer's work is performed is ordinarily the single most
important factor in determining whether a common law employment
relationship exists. Azad v. United States, 388 F.2d at 76;
Leavell v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 140, 149 (1995); Weber v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 387. In order for a principal to
retain the requisite control over the details of a taxpayer's
work, the principal need not stand over the taxpayer and direct
every move made by that person. Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C.
at 388; Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner,
89 T.C. at 234; Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. at 985. In
addition, the degree of control necessary to find employee status
varies according to the nature of the services provided. Weber
v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 388. Finally, we must consider not
only what actual control is exercised, but also what right of
control exists as a practical matter. Professional & Executive
Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d at 754, 89 T.C. at 233-
234; Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at 387-388.
In determining whether an individual is under sufficient
direction and control of another to warrant the finding of an
employer-employee relationship, the courts often have referred to
the regulations promulgated under the employment tax provisions.
- NEXTRECORD -
Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
at 231. Under section 31.3401(c)-1(b), Employment Tax Regs., an
employer-employee relationship--
Generally * * * exists when the person for whom
services are performed has the right to control and
direct the individual who performs the services, not
only as to the result to be accomplished by the work
but also as to the details and means by which that
result is accomplished. That is, an employee is
subject to the will and control of the employer not
only as to what shall be done but how it shall be done.
* * * In general, if an individual is subject to the
control or direction of another merely as to the result
to be accomplished by the work and not as to the means
and methods for accomplishing the result, he is not an
employee.
As a preliminary matter we note that the parties dispute the
identity of the principal in applying the control test.
Petitioners contend that in analyzing whether petitioner is an
employee, only the control exercised by the DFM should be
considered. Respondent contends that the DFM is a division of
the National Church and that the collective right to control
maintained by the DFM and the National Church must be considered.
We agree with respondent on this point. The National Church
prosecutes its activities, in part, through general offices such
as the DFM. The DFM is merely an extension of the National
Church charged with the specific task of coordinating Assemblies
of God missionary efforts outside the United States. As an
agency of the National Church, the DFM performs this task on
behalf of the National Church. Thus, we think that the control
exercised by both the National Church and the DFM should be
- NEXTRECORD -
considered together in determining whether petitioner is an
employee.
Respondent contends that the DFM exercised control, or had
the right to exercise control, over petitioner to such a degree
that we must conclude that he was an employee. In this regard,
respondent points out that as a missionary, petitioner qualifies
as a professional who required little supervision and that the
absence of actual control should not be confused with an absence
of the right to control.
The threshold level of control necessary to find employee
status is generally lower when applied to professional services
than when applied to nonprofessional services. Azad v. United
States, supra at 77, Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 232. However, the precise degree of
control required to find an employer-employee relationship varies
with different occupations. United States v. W.M. Webb, Inc.,
397 U.S. 179, 193 (1970). In the present case, even applying a
lower standard of control because of petitioner's status as a
professional, we find that neither the National Church nor the
DFM exercised, or had the right to exercise, a sufficient degree
of control to support a finding that petitioner was an employee.
Neither the National Church nor the DFM provided any type of
professional training for petitioner. The DFM did not assign
petitioner to minister in a particular country; petitioner
selected Bangladesh, notwithstanding the reservations expressed
- NEXTRECORD -
by the DFM. The DFM did not direct petitioner to work on a
particular project in Bangladesh; rather, petitioner
independently chose to become involved in student ministry.
Petitioner decided to expand his foreign ministry to include a
drug-rehabilitation program. He was able to make this decision
without seeking permission from the DFM. In fact, it appears
that at the time of trial, the DFM was not even aware of
petitioner's plans to initiate a drug-rehabilitation clinic in
Bangladesh.
Petitioner determined his own work days and hours. He was
able to use his vacation and sick leave without notifying or
seeking permission from the DFM. Petitioner decided to return
from his foreign ministry after only 3 years in the foreign
field. He made this decision considering the needs of his
school-aged children and the schedules of the other missionaries
in his area. It appears that the DFM played little or no role in
determining petitioner's field departure date. Petitioner
decided when his personal allowance would begin, and he had the
power to designate the amount of his personal allowance up to the
limit imposed by the DFM.
Petitioner was required to attend only one meeting every 5
years. Apart from filing periodic disbursement, deputational,
and field reports, petitioner and the DFM did not communicate
regularly. Specifically, the DFM did not contact petitioner at
all during petitioner's year of deputational ministry. Likewise,
- NEXTRECORD -
the DFM communicated with petitioner infrequently while
petitioner served in the foreign field. Petitioner was not
directly supervised or evaluated by anyone.
Respondent emphasizes that the DFM maintained control over
petitioner through its missions manual that dictated the manner
in which petitioner was to conduct his deputational and foreign
ministry. We think that respondent overstates the role of the
missions manual. The missions manual was intended by the DFM to
be an informational reference for missionaries, not a set of
rules controlling their day-to-day conduct.
We recognize that the missions manual contains extensive
information with respect to foreign ministry; however, most of
the manual's provisions provide general information and guidance,
rather than impose requirements on missionaries. To the extent
that the missions manual appears to impose requirements on
missionaries, we are reminded of Mr. Burgess' testimony that the
DFM never intended to enforce the manual's provisions.
In this regard, the DFM's only method of enforcing the
manual's provisions is to withdraw its endorsement of a
missionary. We observe that the withdrawal of a missionary's
endorsement does not prevent the missionary from serving in the
foreign field; rather, it merely precludes the missionary from
using DFM's services. Thus, to a substantial degree, "mandatory"
provisions in the missions manual are toothless. Because the DFM
intended that the missions manual be used only as a guideline,
- NEXTRECORD -
and because the DFM lacks any real ability to enforce its
provisions, we reject respondent's contention that the manual
dictated the manner in which petitioner performed his missionary
duties.
In summary, the DFM lacked the control and lacked the right
to control the manner and means by which petitioner performed his
duties as a foreign missionary. Rather, the DFM facilitates
foreign ministry by processing a missionary's collections and
pledges and providing useful information to missionaries through
the missions manual and a proposed foreign living budget. In
other words, we view the DFM as a service provider relieving
endorsed missionaries from the administrative burdens of
collecting and processing their pledges and obtaining information
regarding their country of service.
Respondent also contends that the record in this case shows
that the National Church exercised control, or had the right to
exercise control, over petitioner's ministerial credentials to
such a degree that we must conclude he was an employee. In
support of her position, respondent points out that the National
Church: (1) Maintains specific requirements for ministerial
licensing and ordination; (2) has the authority to discipline
ministers based on their behavior and conduct; and (3) has the
authority to withdraw ministerial credentials. Specifically,
respondent argues that the National Church's ability to revoke
petitioner's credentials, if petitioner did not perform his
- NEXTRECORD -
duties in the correct manner, gives the National Church the power
to control his day-to-day conduct.
Respondent's emphasis on the National Church's control of
petitioner's ministerial credentials is misplaced for two
reasons. First, although petitioner was an ordained Assemblies
of God minister, he was engaged as a missionary. The National
Church's requirements for ministerial licensing and ordination,
as well as its authority to discipline petitioner and withdraw
his ministerial credentials, have little or no bearing as to the
details and means by which petitioner performed his duties as a
missionary.
Second, we do not think that the control test is satisfied
where the manner in which a service is performed is controlled by
the threat of the loss of professional credentials. Carried to
its logical extreme, this argument would serve to classify all
ordained ministers as employees of the National Church,
regardless of the type of service performed. We reject
respondent's contention that the National Church's ability to
revoke petitioner's ministerial credentials dictated petitioner's
daily conduct as a foreign missionary.
We are aware of the recent case, Alford v. United States,
Civil No. 94-1074, in which the District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas considered whether an Assemblies of God
ordained minister serving as a pastor of an affiliated local
church was an employee or an independent contractor. The
- NEXTRECORD -
District Court concluded that the local church, through its
supervision by the District Council and the National Church,
demonstrated significant control over the manner in which the
taxpayer performed his work, and therefore held that the pastor
was an employee. In so holding, the District Court emphasized
the National Church's control over the taxpayer with respect to
preaching, doctrine, and conduct.
We observe as an initial matter that we are not bound by the
District Court's holding. In any event, we think that
petitioner's circumstances in the present case are very different
from those of the taxpayer's in Alford v. United States, supra.
Petitioner was employed as a foreign missionary, not a
pastor. We think that the National Church's authority over the
manner in which a pastor performs his or her duties is not highly
probative in analyzing the National Church's control over the
daily activities of a foreign missionary. This is because
pastoring a local church and engaging in foreign mission work are
two different jobs involving different qualifications, duties,
and bodies of authority. Pastors are subject to the controls of
a local church whereas missionaries are subject to the authority
of the DFM. As previously discussed, the DFM exerted very little
control over petitioner.
In summary, the DFM's and National Church's lack of control
over, and lack of the right to control, the manner and means by
which petitioner performed his duties as a foreign missionary
- NEXTRECORD -
support a finding that petitioner was an independent contractor,
not an employee.
B. Investment in Facilities and Equipment
Petitioner's sole compensation as a missionary was in the
form of a "personal allowance" secured from funds that he raised
during his deputational ministry. In this regard, we observe
that if a donor fails to remit a pledged amount, the DFM makes no
effort to contact the donor, much less obtain the donation.
Additionally, the National Church does not guarantee missionaries
minimum compensation or support. Petitioner used his personal
car and telephone to raise funds during his deputational
ministry. Petitioner occasionally hired assistants at his own
discretion and accepted responsibility for paying those
assistants.
Respondent contends that petitioner was reimbursed for his
expenses when he withheld costs from the offerings remitted to
the DFM. Even if petitioner were regarded as receiving
reimbursement for his expenses, this matter is more than
outweighed by other evidence probative of his being an
independent contractor, e.g., petitioner's efforts in securing
the funding for his foreign ministry and his investment in his
automobile and telephone. Thus, this factor supports a finding
that petitioner was an independent contractor, not an employee.
- NEXTRECORD -
C. Opportunity For Profit or Loss
The National Church does not guarantee missionaries minimum
compensation. The compensation received by missionaries is in
the form of a personal allowance, the amount of which depends, in
part, on the total amount of funding that missionaries are able
to secure during their deputational ministry. Additionally, upon
resignation, missionaries forfeit any account balance they may
have with the DFM and must reallocate their funds to another
ministry.
Because petitioner had some opportunity for profit and risk
of loss, this factor supports a finding that petitioner was an
independent contractor, not an employee.
D. Permanency of the Relationship
Petitioner concedes that missionary ministry is a lifetime
career. This factor supports a finding that petitioner was an
employee.
E. DFM's Right of Discharge
The DFM did not have the power to prevent petitioner from
serving as an Assemblies of God missionary in Bangladesh. The
DFM's most extreme form of discipline is the withdrawal of a
missionary's endorsement. For a missionary, the practical
consequence of losing the DFM's endorsement is one of
administrative inconvenience, namely, that the missionary must
collect and process pledges without the assistance of the DFM.
- NEXTRECORD -
In any event, unendorsed Assemblies of God missionaries can and
do serve in the foreign field.
Respondent contends that because petitioner is an Assemblies
of God minister, the General and District Councils have the right
to revoke petitioner's ministerial credentials, and that,
therefore, the National Church can effectively discharge
petitioner. Indeed, the credentials committee has the authority
to withdraw the approval and recommend the recall of ministerial
credentials. Although petitioner is an Assemblies of God
minister subject to the disciplinary proceedings in the
constitution and bylaws, he presently serves in the capacity of a
foreign missionary. Thus, we think the more appropriate analysis
considers the DFM's right to discharge petitioner in his capacity
as a missionary, rather than the National Church's right to
recall petitioner's ministerial credentials.
Because the DFM lacked the power to discharge petitioner as
a missionary to Bangladesh, this factor supports a finding that
petitioner was an independent contractor, and not an employee.
F. Integral Part of Business
The DFM's primary mission is world evangelism. Petitioner's
work as an Assemblies of God missionary was directly related to
the accomplishment of that mission. This factor supports a
finding that petitioner was an employee.
- NEXTRECORD -
G. Relationship Petitioner and DFM Believed They Had Created
Jerry Burgess, who had worked as the financial comptroller
of the DFM for 16 years, testified that the DFM considered its
missionaries independent contractors, not employees. Mr.
Burgess' testimony is supported by the fact that the National
Church issued petitioner Form 1099-MISC reflecting nonemployee
compensation for services rendered. Additionally, the fact that
Federal income tax was not withheld from petitioner's
compensation is consistent with the DFM's view that petitioner
was an independent contractor.
Petitioner also thought he was an independent contractor, as
evidenced by the fact that he reported his foreign ministry
receipts and expenses on Schedule C.
Because the National Church and petitioner thought that
petitioner was an independent contractor, this factor would
support a finding that petitioner was an independent contractor,
not an employee.
H. Employee-Type Benefits
The DFM offered petitioner access to the MBA pension plan
and a health insurance plan. Petitioner participated in the MBA
pension plan and the health insurance plan. The premiums for
petitioner's health insurance and the money transferred into
petitioner's MBA account were paid directly from petitioner's
account with the DFM.
- NEXTRECORD -
The DFM has no policy regarding sick leave and does not
maintain records reflecting either vacation or sick leave taken
by missionaries. Missionaries continue to receive their personal
allowances while on vacation and sick leave.
Although the matter is not free from doubt, we think that
these facts support a finding that petitioner was an employee,
not an independent contractor.
I. Conclusion
Some aspects of the relationship between petitioner and the
National Church indicate that petitioner was an employee, whereas
other aspects of the relationship indicate that he was an
independent contractor. After weighing the above factors, giving
particular weight to the lack of control and the lack of the
right to control that the National Church and the DFM had over
endorsed missionaries, we conclude that petitioner was an
independent contractor, and not an employee, in 1992.
Because of our determination that petitioner was an
independent contractor for purposes of section 62(a),
petitioner's trade or business expenses are deductible "above the
line" on Schedule C and need not be relegated to Schedule A.
- NEXTRECORD -
To reflect our conclusion herein,
- NEXTRECORD -
Decision will be entered
for petitioners.