- 18 -
Employment Tax Regs.)); Breaux & Daigle, Inc. v. United States,
900 F.2d at 53 (same); Air Terminal Cab, Inc. v. United States,
478 F.2d at 581.
Although most of the drivers worked for only a few months,
we find the facts that the drivers' brief periods of employment
were in the course of petitioner's regular business and that
petitioner had the right to discharge the drivers, and the
drivers had the right to quit, most persuasive. See United
States v. Silk, supra. Accordingly, this factor supports a
finding that the drivers were employees of petitioner.
7. Service Integral to the Business
The drivers in this case did not have their own independent
businesses; rather, they performed a function that was an
essential part of petitioner's company's normal operations. The
success of petitioner's trucking business depended, in part, upon
the work performed by the drivers. Therefore, the drivers'
services were an integral part of petitioner's business. See
Breaux & Daigle, Inc. v. United States, supra (financial success
of processor of crab meat was dependent upon crab meat pickers;
therefore, crab meat pickers' services were integral part of
processor's business); Air Terminal Cab, Inc. v. United States,
supra at 581 (taxicab drivers were performing personal services
constituting integral part of taxpayer's business operations); In
re McAtee, 126 Bankr. at 572 (truck drivers services were
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