However, as Petitioner pointed out in its objection to my ruling denying its motion for dismissal, Petitioner established EST's case for it during testimony. That having been said, I now turn to the question of the performance of service in this matter. Lawrence Rima, the hanger, and Mr. Mead entered into an informal agreement to work together under Petitioner's licenses to sheet rock some condominiums as a sub-contractor for Continental Development. Petitioner realized no profit from Mr. Rima's work, and the work was not done for Petitioner. Therefore, I hold that Mr. Rima did not perform services for Petitioner.
Petitioner does work in building maintenance restoring apartments prior to re-occupancy.
Mr. Mead does the bulk of the work himself, although he does utilize the services of day laborers to clean up, haul garbage, etc. Petitioner pays these workers out of the proceeds gained from this work. I hold that the laborers performed services for Petitioner. Petitioner also utilized the services of a plumber, R. S. McKinnon, in repairing some plumbing which had broken in one of the apartments. Petitioner paid the plumber.