- 65 -
trucking company clients that reimbursed TLC for certain premiums
with respect to health insurance for certain driver-employees,42
no trucking company client reimbursed TLC for any of TLC’s
expenses, and no trucking company client paid TLC a separate
service charge.
Petitioner’s assertion that the Court found in Transport
Labor I that TLC’s preparation of each driver-employee’s paycheck
was a factor evidencing that TLC was the employer of each driver-
employee is wrong. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Court
found in Transport Labor I, “that TLC’s payment of each driver-
employee’s net wages and any per diem amounts is a factor
evidencing that TLC was the employer of each driver-employee.”
Id. at 193. That was because it is the employer who pays the
wages and any per diem due to his or her employees.43
Petitioner’s assertion that the Court found in Transport
Labor I that the factor relating to the source of the funds used
to pay TLC’s payroll obligation was a neutral factor is wrong.
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Court found in Transport
Labor I that “the method by which each trucking company client
42See supra note 8.
43Petitioner fails to mention that the Court in Transport
Labor I found that TLC’s limited opportunity for profit and
limited risk of loss in its driver-leasing business were factors
“evidencing that each trucking company client, and not TLC, was
the employer of each driver-employee.” Transp. Labor
Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 198.
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011