- 54 -54
632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commis-
sioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam
T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77
(1986).
We shall now address the factors under the common-law
employment test in order to determine whether TLC was the em-
ployer of each driver-employee.
Right To Control Driver-Employee
Petitioner argues that each trucking company client exer-
cised control over the activities of a driver-employee whom TLC
leased to it by giving such driver-employee his or her route
assignments, directing such driver-employee as to the loads
assigned to him or her and as to the times by which such driver-
employee had to deliver those loads, and relaying any customer
instructions relating to such loads.
Respondent counters that the foregoing assignments, direc-
tions, and instructions that each trucking company client gave to
a driver-employee whom TLC leased to it were merely dispatching
functions “which, as a practical matter, could only be performed
by the Trucking Companies, and the fact that they did so has
little bearing on which party was the Drivers’ employer.”
Section 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs., describes
the right to control an employee as follows:
the person for whom services are performed has the
right to control and direct the individual who performs
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011