Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 47

                                       - 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