- 22 -
Ankerfelt’s disputed trial testimony. Consequently, the Court in
Transport Labor I found that respondent impeached Mr. Ankerfelt’s
disputed trial testimony.26 Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc.
& Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 186. In addition, the Court in
Transport Labor I found that “respondent also raised other
questions about the reliability of Mr. Ankerfelt’s testimony that
TLC exercised only an advisory role in hiring each
driver-employee.” Id. Respondent called as a witness Beverly
Fiereck (Ms. Fiereck), the president of Parkway Auto Transport
(Parkway), one of TLC’s trucking company clients.27 Id. Ms.
Fiereck, whom the Court found to be credible, id., testified that
TLC, and not Parkway, decided whether or not to hire a truck
driver whom Parkway referred to it. Id. As a result of the
foregoing, the Court did not rely on Mr. Ankerfelt’s testimony to
support petitioner’s position that TLC was not the employer of
26Petitioner contends that, in order to use Mr. Ankerfelt’s
affidavit to impeach him, the Court must find Mr. Ankerfelt’s
affidavit to be credible. Petitioner’s contention is wrong. The
impeachment of Mr. Ankerfelt’s disputed trial testimony arises
from its inconsistency with Mr. Ankerfelt’s affidavit and does
not require that the Court find either Mr. Ankerfelt’s disputed
trial testimony or Mr. Ankerfelt’s affidavit to be credible.
See, e.g., Estate of Shafer v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1145, 1157
n.18 (1983), affd. on other grounds 749 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir.
1984).
27The parties stipulated that the testimony of any person
representing Parkway is to be considered representative of the
testimony that would be given by any persons representing other
trucking company clients of TLC if they had been called to
testify at the trial in this case.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011