- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011