- 34 -                                         
          Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 193,            
          stated:                                                                     
               With respect to each driver-employee, for each payroll                 
               period TLC was obligated to, and did, pay such driver-                 
               employee his or her net wages and any per diem amounts                 
               as well as the employer’s share of employment taxes,                   
               withhold and pay the driver-employee’s share of                        
               employment taxes, withhold and pay Federal and State                   
               income taxes, make daily electronic funds transfers of                 
               the appropriate amounts of such taxes to the IRS and                   
               appropriate State agencies, and pay workers’                           
               compensation insurance premiums.                                       
               The obligations to pay the employer’s share of employment              
          taxes, to withhold and to pay the employee’s share of employment            
          taxes, and to withhold and to pay Federal income tax with respect           
          to an employee’s wages are obligations generally imposed upon an            
          employer.  Secs. 3102(a), 3111(a), 3301, 3402, 3403.  TLC’s                 
          undertaking and satisfying the obligations to withhold and to pay           
          FICA taxes,32 other employment taxes, and Federal income tax with           
          respect to each driver-employee’s wages evidenced that TLC was              
          the employer of each driver-employee.  See Kirk v. Harter, 188              
          F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 1999); Birchem v. Knights of Columbus,            
          116 F.3d 310, 313 (8th Cir. 1997); Wilde v. County of Kandiyohi,            
          15 F.3d 103, 105-106 (8th Cir. 1994).                                       
               In addition, with respect to petitioner’s assertion that TLC           
          was the employer of each driver-employee for all purposes except            
          the section 274(n)(1) limitation because TLC was what petitioner            
               32See Levine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-86.                      
Page:  Previous   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011