- 49 -
driver-employee, and not the actual assignment of such projects,
that evidenced that TLC was the employer of such driver-employee.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323 (1992);
Alford v. United States, 116 F.3d at 338; Beech Trucking Co. v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 440. In Transport Labor I, the Court
found that while TLC was leasing a driver-employee to a trucking
company client, TLC had the right to lease that driver-employee
to another trucking company client and thereby assign additional
projects to such driver-employee. Transp. Labor
Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 169.
Employee Benefits for Each Driver-Employee
With respect to the sponsorship of employee benefits,
petitioner asserts that each trucking company client paid for
various benefits, including a section 401(k) plan, section 125
flexible benefit plan, group or individual health insurance, and
$5,000 group term life insurance policy (collectively, the
employee benefits) provided to each driver-employee and that that
alleged fact supports its position that each trucking company
client was the employer of each driver-employee whom TLC leased
to such trucking company client. In support of that assertion,
petitioner contends as follows:
The Opinion found that TLC sponsored 401(k), 125
flexible benefit, and group/individual health insurance
plans. The Opinion overlooked the testimony of Ms.
Schrupp, who testified:
Q: And when you say that TLC offers benefits
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011