- 18 -
Commissioner, 49 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 1995); Mosteirin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-367; Lozon v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-250; and also in Feivor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-107. In the Butts line of cases, the taxpayers were
insurance agents, so-called neighborhood office agents, for
Allstate. In Feivor, the taxpayer was a district manager for an
insurance company. We held that the taxpayer in each case was an
independent contractor. We reach the same result in the instant
case, and for the same reasons: the circumstances, as a whole,
do not demonstrate a sufficient amount of control by Combined to
find that petitioner was an employee of the company. In
particular, Combined did not exert control over the manner and
means in which petitioner carried out his responsibilities. See
Hathaway v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-389.
Petitioner was a district manager; although he sold some
insurance, he was primarily engaged in the duties of a district
manager. We have found that district managers, on average,
earned only about 30 percent of their income from commissions on
sales, and we believe that at least 70 percent of petitioner’s
duties involved recruiting, hiring, training, and supervising of
insurance agents.
Petitioner had extensive control over the manner and means
of the performance of his responsibilities as district manager.
He had very little supervision. He reported only weekly to his
superiors and almost never received feedback from them on the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011