Transport Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 26

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011