- 47 -47 held itself out as the employer of each driver-employee to the public, including to each trucking company client, the IRS, and various State workers’ compensation plans. Respondent also argues that if the Court were to allow petitioner to disavow TLC’s status as the employer of each driver-employee, petitioner must demonstrate by strong proof38 that TLC was not the employer of each driver-employee. Respondent further maintains that if the Court not only were to allow petitioner to disavow TLC’s status as the employer of each driver-employee but also were to reject respondent’s argument that the strong proof rule is applicable in the instant case, the record nonetheless estab- lishes that TLC was the employer of each driver-employee. We consider first petitioner’s argument that, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the Court should preclude respon- dent from contending that TLC was the employer of each driver- employee. According to petitioner, the Court should apply that doctrine in the instant case because the Commissioner of Internal 38“Strong proof must be put forth by * * * [taxpayers] for this Court to disregard the form in which they cast their trans- actions in an arm's-length deal.” Miami Purchasing Serv. Corp. v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 818, 830 (1981); see also Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 406, 438 (1994). Strong proof constitutes more than a mere preponderance of the evidence. See Major v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 239, 247 (1981). In the instant case, respondent contends that under each exclusive lease agree- ment between TLC and each trucking company client TLC cast itself as the employer of each driver-employee whom it leased to such trucking company client and that therefore petitioner must present strong proof that TLC was not in fact the employer of each such driver-employee.Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011