- 42 -42
* * * we conclude that the section 274(n) limita-
tion applies to Beech Trucking as the common law em-
ployer of its drivers and as the party that (as peti-
tioner states on brief) actually bore the expense of
the expenditures for which the per diem payments were
made [by the company that leased the drivers to Beech
Trucking]. * * *
We decline petitioner’s invitation to read into the above-
quoted or any other statements in Beech Trucking Co. v. Commis-
sioner, supra, that, in all instances involving a three-party
arrangement among a truck driver who is an employee (truck
driver-employee), a trucking company, and a company (driver-
leasing company) that provides, for a fee, the services of such a
truck driver to such a trucking company, the employer of the
truck driver is the person subject to the section 274(n)(1)
limitation. The truck driver-employee in such a three-party
arrangement might be the person who is subject to the section
274(n)(1) limitation, in which event the employer for which such
truck driver worked would not be subject to such limitation. See
sec. 274(e)(3); see also sec. 1.274-2(f)(2)(iv)(a), Income Tax
Regs.
We also decline respondent’s invitation to read into the
above-quoted or any other statements in Beech Trucking Co. v.
Commissioner, supra, that, in all instances involving a three-
party arrangement among a truck driver-employee, a trucking
company, and a driver-leasing company, the person who pays or
incurs or actually bears the food or beverage expenses is the
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011