Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 50

                                       - 50 -50                                           
          record in this case, TLC was the employer of each driver-em-                
          ployee.                                                                     
               We turn next to respondent’s arguments that the Court should           
          not allow petitioner to disavow TLC’s status as the employer of             
          each driver-employee and that if the Court were to allow peti-              
          tioner to do so, petitioner must demonstrate by strong proof that           
          TLC was not the employer of each driver-employee.  Assuming                 
          arguendo that we were to reject such arguments of respondent, on            
          the instant record we nonetheless would, and do below, reject               
          petitioner’s position that TLC was not the employer of each                 
          driver-employee.  Consequently, we need not, and we shall not,              
          consider such arguments of respondent.  Instead, we shall deter-            
          mine whether TLC was the employer of each driver-employee.                  
               In determining whether TLC was the employer of each driver-            
          employee, we shall apply the common-law employment test.  Nation-           
          wide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra at 322-324; Alford v. United            
          States, supra at 337-338; Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, 118           
          T.C. at 440.  In determining under the common-law employment test           
          whether TLC was the employer of each driver-employee, we shall              
          consider a variety of factors, including the following:                     
               the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities                
               and tools; the location of the work; the duration of                   
               the relationship between the parties; whether the                      
               hiring party has the right to assign additional pro-                   
               jects to the hired party; the extent of the hired                      
               party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the                 
               method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and                
               paying assistants; whether the work is part of the                     





Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011