- 33 -
to drive, apparently for an indefinite period, equipment owned by
Beech Trucking Company, which had final authority to fire them.
Id. at 431. That is why the Court in Beech Trucking Co. stated
that “the relationship between the drivers and Beech Trucking was
apparently of indefinite duration.” Id. at 442.
With respect to petitioner’s argument that the Court in
Transport Labor I “added a factor inapplicable to three-party
transactions”, petitioner asserts that “In a three-party
arrangement it is expected that the leasing company will treat
the drivers as employees for purposes of employment taxes, such
as FUTA and FICA taxes.” On the record before us, we reject
petitioner’s assertion.
Petitioner’s assertion that in a “three-party arrangement it
is expected that the leasing company will treat drivers as
employees for purposes of employment taxes” is not supported by
the record in the instant case. The record in Transport Labor I
established facts relating to TLC, its trucking company clients,
and its driver-employees, but did not establish facts relating to
expectations in “three-party arrangements” generally.
In the instant case, if, as petitioner asserts, a trucking
company client expected TLC to treat each driver-employee as an
employee for employment taxes purposes, it was because such
trucking company client expected that TLC would be the employer
for all purposes. In that connection, the Court in Transp. Labor
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011