- 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 thePage: 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