- 58 -
to hire each driver-employee. Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing,
Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 164. Before TLC
decided whether to hire a truck driver as a driver-employee, such
truck driver had to pass TLC’s screening and approval process.
Id. TLC hired approximately 75 percent of its driver-employees
through referrals of trucking company clients, but TLC also hired
approximately 25 percent of its driver-employees through its own
recruitment efforts.38 TLC rejected 10 to 15 percent of truck
drivers whom its trucking company clients referred to it. Id.
In addition, petitioner does not contend, and there is no
evidence, that any trucking company client reimbursed TLC for
TLC’s expenses relating to TLC’s recruitment of any driver-
employee.
Petitioner does not explain how the parties’ stipulation on
which it relies39 is inconsistent with the Court’s finding in
38Petitioner does not explain how the referral by trucking
company clients of approximately 75 percent of the driver-employ-
ees TLC hired supports its argument that TLC provided only
“driver procurement” services. That the trucking company clients
referred to TLC approximately 75 percent of the driver-employees
whom TLC hired suggests that such trucking company clients, and
not TLC, were providing driver procurement services for TLC. In
addition, TLC hired a substantial number of its driver-employees,
i.e., 25 percent, without referral from any trucking company
client. Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v. Commis-
sioner, 123 T.C. at 164.
39The stipulation in question states:
When a Trucking Company entered into a Lease Agreement
with TLC, the Trucking Company would terminate all of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011