- 64 -
before TLC would issue checks. * * * [Reproduced
literally.]
On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s assertion.
Petitioner’s assertion that the facts in Beech Trucking Co.
are “nearly identical to those” in the instant case is wrong. As
discussed above, the facts in Beech Trucking Co. are materially
distinguishable from the facts in the instant case, including the
facts relating to the “method of payment”. In Beech Trucking Co.
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 442, the Court found that ATS, the
driver-leasing company, issued the drivers’ weekly paychecks,
paid workers’ compensation, and maintained a section 401(k) plan
for the drivers and that Beech Trucking Company reimbursed ATS
weekly for its expenditures and paid ATS a separate service
charge for the services ATS rendered to Beech Trucking Company.
In Transport Labor I, with respect to the “method of payment”,41
the Court found that each payroll period each trucking company
client paid TLC a lease fee that was not broken down into
component parts, which TLC used (1) to cover its costs, including
the respective net wages and per diem amounts, if any, that TLC
determined to pay its driver-employees, and (2) to generate a
profit. Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 173-174. With the exception of certain
41By “method of payment”, we mean the method by which, for
each payroll period, each trucking company client paid TLC the
lease fee that it owed to TLC and TLC prepared and disbursed each
driver-employee’s paycheck.
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011