- 45 -
that can happen is nothing changes. The employee doesn’t really
-- we’re pretty invisible.” The Court considered Mr. DeBerg’s
statement “the worst thing that can happen is nothing changes” to
be a sales pitch and, as such, gave it no weight.
The Court considered Mr. DeBerg’s testimony concerning each
trucking company client’s handling “the day-to-day tasks” to be a
reference to the dispatching functions that each trucking company
client performed. Such interpretation is shared by petitioner.
In petitioner’s memorandum in support of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, petitioner points to testimony by Ms. Fiereck
and George Erger, a former employee of Parkway, that Parkway
continued to perform trucking company client dispatching
functions after Parkway entered into the exclusive lease
agreement with TLC as corroborating Mr. DeBerg’s testimony that
each trucking company client continued to handle the “day-to-day
tasks”. As discussed above, the Court in Transport Labor I found
that each trucking company client’s performing the trucking
company client dispatching functions did not give such trucking
company client control over each driver-employee within the
meaning of section 31.3121(d)-1(c)(2) of the Employment Tax
Regulations. Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 188.
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011