- 73 -73
regard, we note that at least certain of the trucking company
clients to which TLC sent the per diem letters did not consider
such letters to be binding on them, since such trucking company
clients did not take the section 274(n)(1) limitation into
account in their respective tax returns.49
On the record before us, we find that TLC’s sending a per
diem letter to each trucking company client is a neutral factor
in determining whether TLC was the employer of each driver-
employee.
Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we
find that TLC was the employer of each driver-employee. On that
record, we further find that the section 274(n)(1) limitation
applies to the per diem amounts that TLC paid to its driver-
employees.
We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of
petitioner and respondent that are not discussed herein, and we
find them to be without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
49The record establishes that TLC’s trucking company clients
NBS Trucking, Joe Hix Trucking, Blachowske Truck Line, Inc.,
Jones Brothers Trucking, Inc., Lake State Transport, Inc., Schak
Trucking Inc., and Parkway Auto Transport received respective
notices of deficiency in which respondent determined that they
had failed to take into account the section 274(n)(1) limitation.
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011