- 26 -
same manner as it did, would not have considered any common-law
employment factors other than those that it considered, and would
have found that Beech Trucking Company was the employer of the
truck drivers whom it leased from ATS.
Beech Trucking Co. is materially distinguishable from the
instant case and not binding on the Court with respect to the
questions presented here. Petitioner is wrong in asserting that
Boyd v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 305 (2004), holds to the contrary.
There was no dispute in Boyd v. Commissioner, supra, that the
trucking company there involved (Continental) was the employer of
the truck drivers who drove its trucks and that such trucking
company was subject to the section 274(n)(1) limitation. Id. at
307. The sole issue in Boyd was the validity and effect of Rev.
Procs. 94-77, 1994-2 C.B. 825, 96-28, 1996-1 C.B. 686, and 96-64,
1996-2 C.B. 427, that are not at issue in the instant case. In
determining the validity and effect of those revenue procedures
in Boyd, the Court indicated that it would apply “the analysis
and reasoning” that Beech Trucking Co. applied in determining the
validity and effect of those same revenue procedures. Id. at
311-312. In so stating, the Court in Boyd was not referring to
the Court’s discussion in Beech Trucking Co. with respect to the
common-law employment factors.
With respect to petitioner’s argument that the Court used
certain common-law employment factors in Transport Labor I that
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011