Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         
          each driver-employee.28                                                     
               With respect to petitioner’s argument that in Transport                
          Labor I the Court did not consider the precedential effect of               
          Beech Trucking Co., petitioner asserts:                                     
                    The Court made a “manifest error of law” when it                  
               failed to follow the binding precedent of Beech Truck-                 
               ing Co. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 428 (2002), in accor-                
               dance with the Court’s ruling in Boyd v. Commissioner,                 
               122 T.C. 305 (2004). * * *                                             
                    In Boyd v. Commissioner, the Court described the                  
               [sic] “the analysis and reasoning” in Beech Trucking                   
               Co. as precedent binding on this Court under the doc-                  
               trine of stare decisis. * * *                                          
          On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s assertion.                  
               As the Court stated in Transport Labor I, the determination            
          of whether an individual is an employer is a fact-intensive                 
          inquiry.  Id. at 184.  Application of the common-law employment             
          factors may produce different results in different cases that may           
          appear to be facially similar.  For example, in Weber v.                    
          Commissioner, 60 F.3d 1104 (4th Cir. 1995), affg. 103 T.C. 378              
          (1994), application of the common-law employment factors resulted           
          in a finding that a Methodist minister was the employee of the              
          United Methodist Church.  In contrast, in Alford v. United                  
          States, 116 F.3d 334 (8th Cir. 1997), and Shelley v.                        

               28To the extent other witnesses whom the Court found to be             
          credible and reliable testified regarding matters about which Mr.           
          Ankerfelt also testified, the Court based its findings upon the             
          testimony of such other witnesses, as well as on the parties’               
          stipulations of fact and documentary evidence in the record, and            
          not on Mr. Ankerfelt’s testimony.                                           

Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011