- 68 -
Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 161. Included in the
information shown in the batch report that each trucking company
client submitted to TLC was the batch report lump sum amount with
respect to each driver-employee whom TLC leased to such trucking
company client.46 Id. at 170. TLC and each trucking company
client agreed in the exclusive lease agreement to the method by
which the batch report lump sum amount was to be calculated.47
Id. at 173 n.28. Pursuant to sections five and fifteen of the
exclusive lease agreement, in order to change that method that
agreement would have had to be modified, which would have
required the agreement of both TLC and the trucking company
client. Id. at 161. In Transport Labor I, the Court did not
find that the foregoing facts evidenced that each trucking
company client, and not TLC, was the employer of each driver-
employee.
With respect to petitioner’s assertion that each trucking
46Neither the batch report nor any other document that a
trucking company client submitted to TLC showed the breakdown of
the batch report lump sum amount between gross wages and any per
diem amounts. It was TLC that determined what portion of the
batch report lump sum amount with respect to each driver-employee
constituted gross wages and what portion, if any, constituted per
diem amounts.
47Pursuant to each exclusive lease agreement, each trucking
company client was to select the method which was to be used in
calculating the batch report lump sum amount for each driver-
employee whom TLC leased to such trucking company client and to
which TLC agreed in that lease agreement. Virtually all of TLC’s
trucking company clients selected a cents-per-mile or a
percentage-of-load-gross-revenue basis as the applicable method.
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011