- 16 -
payment of higher tolls, petitioner charged him for the extra
expense. We do not find this instance of a driver's liability
for the extra toll charges supportive of petitioner's assertion
that his drivers were independent contractors.
Charging an employee for losses caused by the employee is
not incompatible with employee status. See Gierek v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-642 (employee stockbroker charged
for substantial trading loss errors); Butchko v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1978-209 (racetrack teller's cash register shortages
characterized as employee business expenses and deductible only
as itemized deductions), affd. 638 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1981).
This factor supports respondent's determination that the drivers
were employees.
5. Special Skill
Although the Court recognizes that driving a truck requires
skill, we do not think that it is the type of skill envisioned by
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in deciding Avis Rent
A Car System, Inc. v. United States, 503 F.2d 423 (2d Cir. 1974).
See In re McAtee, 126 Bankr. at 572. Rather, the special skill
pertains to services that are outside of the ordinary course of
petitioner's business. See id.; McLaughlin v. Seafood, Inc., 861
F.2d 450 (5th Cir. 1988) (the workers were not specialists called
in to solve a problem, but laborers who performed the essential,
everyday chores of their employer's operation). In this case,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011