- 35 -
refers to as a so-called administrative employer of each driver-
employee, petitioner does not cite, and we have not found, any
authority that supports petitioner’s suggestion that an entity
may selectively be the employer for purposes of withholding
and/or paying employment and Federal income tax but not for other
purposes such as the section 274(n)(1) limitation.
With respect to petitioner’s argument that, in finding
certain facts, the Court in Transport Labor I gave improper
weight to certain evidence, petitioner asserts:
The Court’s reliance on the Lease Agreement,
Driver Handbook, and Driver’s Contract also is contrary
to Beech Trucking. As Beech Trucking noted, it is
well-established that “[a] contract purporting to
create an employer-employee relationship is not
controlling where application of the common law factors
to the facts and circumstances indicates the absence of
such a relationship.” * * *
Furthermore, the Court gave too much weight to the
Driver Handbook. The Handbook only described ordinary
activities carried out by truck drivers that were
either recitations of Department of Transportation
requirements, obvious to a licensed truck driver, or
merely advisory, not mandatory. While TLC may have had
written policies aimed at reducing workers’
compensation claims, there is no evidence that TLC
controlled the work of the drivers through those
policies. [Citations omitted.]
On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s assertion.
A contract purporting to create an employer-employee
relationship is not controlling where application of the common-
law employment factors to the facts and circumstances indicates
the absence of such a relationship. Profl. & Executive Leasing,
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011