COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
 
 
 Present:  Judges Bray, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Hodges
 Argued by teleconference
 
 
 CENTRAL DELIVERY SERVICE 
  OF WASHINGTON, INC.
 			MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
 v.	Record No. 2046-00-2	JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
 								   NOVEMBER 6, 2001
 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
 
 
 	FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
 Theodore J. Markow, Judge
 
 		E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. (William H. 
 Baxter II; McGuireWoods LLP, on briefs), for 
 appellant.
 
 		William A. Diamond, Assistant Attorney 
 General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; 
 Richard B. Zorn, Senior Assistant Attorney 
 General, on brief), for appellee.
 
 
 
 	Central Delivery Service of Washington, Inc. (Central 
 Delivery) appeals a July 27, 2000 circuit court order affirming a 
 decision of the Virginia Employment Commission (the VEC).  The VEC 
 held that services performed by contract carrier courier drivers 
 for Central Delivery constituted "employment" for which Central 
 Delivery is liable for unemployment insurance taxes pursuant to 
 Code  60.2-212 and that their services were not exempt under Code 
  60.2-219(22).  Central Delivery argues that the VEC and the 
 circuit court erred in denying their exemption from state 
 unemployment taxation.  For the reasons that follow, we agree and 
 reverse.
 BACKGROUND
 	For unemployment compensation purposes, the term "employment" 
 is defined in Code  60.2-212.  Generally, that term means any 
 service performed for remuneration or under any contract of hire.  
 The VEC, in its commission decision, determined that the services 
 performed by Central Delivery's drivers constitute "employment" 
 under Code  60.2-212, and that issue is not before us on appeal.  
 However, Code  60.2-619 contains a list of services that are 
 statutorily exempt from the "employment" definition.  Code
  60.2-619(22) provides that the term "employment" shall not 
 include:  "Service performed . . . as a driver of an executive 
 sedan . . . provided the Commission is furnished evidence that 
 such individual is excluded from taxation by the Federal 
 Unemployment Tax Act" (FUTA).  The VEC and the circuit court 
 determined that Central Delivery had not provided the VEC with 
 sufficient evidence to prove that its drivers are excluded from 
 FUTA taxation.  Central Delivery appeals from that determination.
 	In its findings of fact, the VEC found that Central Delivery 
 is engaged in, among other things, delivery and messenger 
 service.  Central Delivery engages the services of contract 
 courier drivers to perform the actual deliveries according to 
 customer specifications.  It is the status of these drivers that 
 is at issue in this case.  The VEC noted that the Internal 
 Revenue Service (IRS) has audited Central Delivery on several 
 occasions.  In 1996, representatives of Central Delivery 
 responded to the IRS "20 questions" with respect to whether the 
 contract operators are independent contractors or employees.  By 
 a form letter dated in February 1996, the district director of 
 the IRS advised Central Delivery that it had completed the 
 review and had taken action indicated by the check below.  The 
 box that read, "We have accepted the report" was checked.  
 ANALYSIS
 	The findings of the VEC as to the facts, "if supported by 
 the evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, 
 and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions 
 of law."  Code  60.2-500(B)(1).  "On appeal, we consider the 
 evidence in the light most favorable to the finding by the VEC."  
 V.E.C v. Thomas Regional Directory, Inc., 13 Va. App. 610, 613, 
 414 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1992).  Thus, unless we can say as a matter 
 of law that the evidence established the exceptions, the VEC's 
 decision must be upheld.  In this case the evidence provided by 
 Central Delivery was sufficient to establish that its drivers 
 are excluded from taxation by FUTA.  Code  60.2-219(22).    
 	In Revenue Ruling 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 286, the IRS provided 
 a list of factors used to determine whether contractors are 
 "employees . . . for the purposes of . . . the Federal 
 Unemployment Tax Act."  The list of factors is the IRS's "20 
 questions" that Central Delivery answered in its audit and which 
 the IRS accepted.  Code  60.2-219(22) required Central Delivery 
 to furnish "evidence" of its drivers' exemption from FUTA 
 taxation.  Although the VEC asked Central Delivery to provide an 
 IRS Form SS-8 specific to the individuals in question, the 
 statute allows, as the VEC acknowledged, other evidence which 
 would demonstrate the drivers' exemption.  The IRS letter 
 accepting Central Delivery's "20 questions" answers sufficiently 
 demonstrated that the IRS considered Central Delivery's drivers 
 exempt from FUTA taxation.  See Rev. Rul. 87-41, 1987-1 C.B. 
 286.  Thus, as a matter of law, the evidence supported a finding 
 that Central Delivery is exempt from state unemployment taxes 
 under Code  60.2-219(22).
 	Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is reversed.
 											Reversed. 
 * Pursuant to Code  17.1-413, this opinion is not 
 designated for publication.