- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011