Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          entered stipulated decisions in such cases, which reflected such            
          concessions.                                                                
                                     Discussion                                       
          Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration                                     
               In support of petitioner’s position that the Court should              
          grant petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, petitioner ad-               
          vances the following arguments:  (1) The Court erred in conclud-            
          ing that respondent impeached the testimony of Gary Ankerfelt               
          (Mr. Ankerfelt); (2)(a) the Court did not consider the                      
          precedential effect of Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, 118              
          T.C. 428 (2002) (Beech Trucking Co.), and (b) the factors used in           
          determining whether a person is an employer or an employee24 that           
          the Court applied in Transport Labor I were inconsistent with the           
          common-law employment factors applied by the Court in Beech                 
          Trucking Co.; and (3)(a) in finding certain facts, the Court gave           
          improper weight to certain evidence, and (b) in determining                 
          whether TLC was the employer25 of certain truck drivers whom it             
          leased to certain trucking companies, the Court gave improper               
          weight to certain facts that the Court found in Transport Labor             
          I.  Respondent opposes petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.             


               24For convenience, we shall refer to the factors used in               
          determining whether a person is an employer or an employee as the           
          common-law employment factors.                                              
               25We accord the term “employer” the same meaning as the term           
          “common-law employer”.  For convenience, we shall use only the              
          term “employer”.                                                            




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011