- 13 -
with the leases, and directing, supervising, paying,
disciplining, and discharging the drivers.
Petitioner determined the days drivers could work and
controlled which loads the drivers would haul. Petitioner
required the drivers to have appropriate commercial drivers’
licenses, deliver the freight to certain places at certain times,
maintain driving logs and other documents, and carry beepers.19
Petitioner, not the drivers, determined whether truck repairs
were performed on the road or by its own mechanics and was
responsible for all truck maintenance costs incurred in
maintaining the trucks.
The fact that the drivers could choose the routes to take to
the specified destination, were liable to pay tolls, and could
stop and rest when desired does not mean petitioner did not
maintain the requisite control. For an employer-employee
relationship to exist, petitioner is not required to direct or
control the manner in which the services are performed, so long
as it has that right to do so if necessary. Sec.
31.3121(d)-1(c)(2), Employment Tax Regs.
It was unnecessary for petitioner to control the manner in
which the drivers completed their work because their work
19 At trial, Mr. Peno testified that petitioner did not
require its drivers to carry electronic communication devices.
However, a stipulated exhibit indicated petitioner required its
drivers to carry beepers, presumably so that it could maintain
contact while the drivers were on the road.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007