- 57 -
Also, while TLC advertised for and attempted to
recruit new drivers, the parties stipulated that “the
Trucking Companies located most new Drivers and then
referred them to TLC for approval and hiring” by TLC
for assignment to the trucking company that had located
the driver for employment. * * * The trucking companies
located about 75 percent of the new drivers, and TLC
only located about 25 percent of the new drivers. * * *
The Court’s analysis here is contrary to Beech
Trucking in another respect. In Beech Trucking, the
Court found that the leasing company hired the drivers
and provided the drivers with some orientation. * * *
Although the leasing company hired the drivers, the
Court in Beech Trucking accurately described the
leasing company’s role as a “driver procurement and
payroll service.” * * * On nearly identical facts in
this case, the Court inexplicably reached the opposite
result. [Reproduced literally.]
On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s argument.
As discussed above, the facts presented in Beech Trucking
Co. are materially distinguishable from the facts in the instant
case. In Beech Trucking Co., ATS (the driver-leasing company)
procured truck drivers for Beech Trucking Company but, as
discussed above, the record was “unclear as to the extent of any
business ATS might have had apart from the services it provided
Beech Trucking”. Beech Trucking Co. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
at 443. Thus, insofar as the record in Beech Trucking Co.
revealed, any truck drivers whom ATS procured were procured only
for Beech Trucking Company’s use. Indeed, Beech Trucking Company
reimbursed ATS for any expenses related to ATS’s truck driver
procurement. Id. at 442.
In the instant case, TLC had the sole and absolute authority
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011