- 71 -
TLC as to what those instructions were. In Transport Labor I,
the Court did not find that the above-quoted testimony of Ms.
Schrupp evidenced that TLC was or was not the employer of each
driver-employee.
Work of Driver-Employee as Part of Regular Business of TLC
Petitioner asserts:
The business of a trucking company is to move
cargo by truck. TLC’s business was to enter into
contracts to lease personnel. TLC’s business would be
the same whether it leased truck drivers or some other
type of personnel. By contrast, a trucking company
cannot exist without drivers. The drivers worked from
the trucking companies’ places of business and operated
the trucking companies’ equipment.
The Court’s conclusion in this case again was
contrary to Beech Trucking because the Court did not
find that “clearly, the drivers’ work was part of the
regular business” of the trucking companies. Indeed,
we are not aware of a single case in which a leased
employee was found to be “part of the business” of a
leasing company.
On the record before us, we reject petitioner’s assertion.
In Transport Labor I, the Court found that each truck driver
whom TLC hired as a driver-employee played an integral role in
TLC’s business of leasing driver-employees to its trucking
company clients. Transp. Labor Contract/Leasing, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 164. TLC could not have conducted its
business of leasing truck drivers without the driver-employees
whom it leased to its trucking company clients. Id. at 194.
Petitioner has not explained how TLC could have conducted its
business of leasing each driver-employee without employing such
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011