- 25 - apart from the services it provided Beech Trucking.” Id. at 443. In contrast to the record before the Court in Beech Trucking Co., the Court in Transport Labor I had a complete, extensive, and clear record upon which to base its findings and conclusions and which included the exclusive lease agreement, the driver contract, the TLC driver handbook, and the testimony of representatives of various trucking company clients and TLC. In addition, there was no evidence, and petitioner does not contend, (1) that petitioner or TLC had any overlapping personnel with any trucking company client, (2) that petitioner or TLC owned any interest in any trucking company client, or (3) that any owner of a trucking company client owned an interest in petitioner.29 Cf. id. at 430-431. Moreover, in contrast to ATS, which insofar as the record in Beech Trucking Co. revealed had only one trucking company as a client, viz., Beech Trucking Company, id. at 443, during the years at issue TLC had between 100 and 300 trucking company clients, Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 156. It is mere speculation on the part of petitioner to assume that if the facts in Beech Trucking Co. had been virtually the same as the facts in the instant case, which they are not, the Court in Beech Trucking Co. nevertheless would have evaluated the common-law employment factors in the 29TLC was a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner. Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 155.Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011