Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 51

                                       - 51 -51                                           
               regular business of the hiring party; whether the                      
               hiring party is in business; the provision of employee                 
               benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.                    
          Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra at 323-324.                       
               A primary consideration in determining which of two persons            
          is the employer of an individual is “which of the two [persons]             
          has the right to control the activities of the individual”.                 
          Leavell v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 140, 150 (1995); see Schweiger            
          v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 207 F.3d 480, 484 (8th Cir. 2000); Beech           
          Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 441; Weber v. Commis-                
          sioner, 103 T.C. 378, 387 (1994), affd. per curiam 60 F.3d 1104             
          (4th Cir. 1995); Profl. & Executive Leasing Inc. v. Commissioner,           
          89 T.C. 225, 232-233 (1987), affd. 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988);            
          sec. 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs.                               
               Before considering the factors under the common-law employ-            
          ment test, we shall address the testimony of Gary Ankerfelt (Mr.            
          Ankerfelt) on which petitioner relies to support its position               
          that TLC was not the employer of each driver-employee.  From                
          TLC’s inception until 2000, Mr. Ankerfelt was TLC’s president and           
          chief executive officer.  According to petitioner, Mr.                      
          Ankerfelt’s testimony establishes that the provisions of each               
          exclusive lease agreement which gave TLC the sole and absolute              
          authority to hire, fire, and control the work and conduct of each           
          driver-employee do not mean what they say.  In this regard, Mr.             
          Ankerfelt testified:  (1) TLC exercised only an advisory role in            






Page:  Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011