Such determination turns on a variety of factors, including the status of a stockholder, the authority to hire and fire employees and responsibility for the corporation's management ( see Matter of Cohen v. State Tax Commn., 128 A.D.2d at 1023, 513 N.Y.S.2d 564;20 NYCRR 526.11[b] [2] ). In this regard, an important consideration is “petitioner's authority and responsibility to exercise control over the corporation, not his [or her] actual assertion of such authority” (Matter of Coppola v. Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 37 A.D.3d at 903, 828 N.Y.S.2d 712;accord Matter of Ippolito v. Tax Appeals Trib. of the Dept. of Taxation & Fin. of the State of N.Y., 116 A.D.3d 1176, ––––, 984 N.Y.S.2d 198, 200 [2014];see Matter of Cohen v. State Tax Commn., 128 A.D.2d at 1023, 513 N.Y.S.2d 564). Here, it is undisputed that Luongo, not petitioner, controlled the day-to-day operations of Fifth Avenue. Petitioner did not sign checks, hire or fire employees, or assist in preparing tax returns.