- 27 -
were inconsistent with the common-law employment factors that the
Court used in Beech Trucking Co., petitioner asserts:
the Court did not apply some of the factors used in
Beech Trucking, restated factors used in Beech Trucking
in a materially different way, and added a factor
inapplicable to three-party transactions. The Court’s
Opinion also uses a different analysis of the factors
than the Court did in Beech Trucking. * * *
On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s assertion.
The list of common-law employment factors that the Court set
forth in Beech Trucking Co. was nonexhaustive. Schwieger v. Farm
Bureau Ins. Co., 207 F.3d 480, 484 (8th Cir. 2000); Beech
Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 440. Petitioner does
not cite, and we have not found, any authority that precluded the
Court in Transport Labor I, in determining whether TLC was the
employer of each driver-employee whom it leased to each trucking
company client, from considering common-law employment factors in
addition to those on which the Court relied in Beech Trucking Co.
and from not giving the same weight to certain factors on which
the Court relied in Beech Trucking Co.
With respect to petitioner’s argument that the Court in
Transport Labor I “restated factors used in Beech Trucking in a
materially different way”, petitioner asserts that the Court in
Transport Labor I erred in considering the “sponsorship of * * *
employee benefits” rather than the “provision of employee
benefits”. Petitioner’s assertion erroneously assumes that the
Court intended a substantive difference when it used the phrase
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011