- 46 -46
with the performance by such driver-employee of services for such
employer under a reimbursement or other expense allowance ar-
rangement with such employer; (3) such expenses, as well as the
per diem amounts that TLC paid to each driver-employee, are the
kinds of expenses that generally are subject to the section
274(n)(1) limitation; and (4) no driver-employee is subject to
the section 274(n)(1) limitation because each driver-employee
qualifies for the section 274(e)(3)(A) exception.
As a result of the parties’ agreement regarding, and/or
their failure to dispute, the foregoing matters, we conclude that
our resolution of the disagreement between the parties over
whether the section 274(n)(1) limitation applies to the per diem
amounts that TLC paid to each driver-employee depends on our
resolution of the dispute between them over whether TLC was the
employer of each such driver-employee.
It is petitioner’s position that each trucking company
client of TLC, and not TLC, was the employer of each driver-
employee, the services of whom TLC provided, for a fee, to such
trucking company client and that, under the doctrine of judicial
estoppel, the Court should preclude respondent from arguing that
TLC was the employer of each driver-employee.
It is respondent’s position that the Court should not allow
petitioner to disavow TLC’s status as the employer of each
driver-employee. That is because, according to respondent, TLC
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011