- 177 -
between GM and CTC, petitioner's rights to commission fees were
nonassignable. Even though some of the payments were made to
Diesel Power, it is clear that GM viewed Diesel Power and
petitioner as one and the same. As with the commission payments
made directly to CTC, the record shows that petitioner did much
of the work involved in earning these commissions and, to the
extent that Diesel Power employees were also involved, the
earning of these commissions was subject to petitioner's control.
Although petitioner relinquished ownership of some of his Diesel
Power stock in late 1974, the evidence shows that his control
over the earning of commissions from GM did not change after that
date. Accordingly, we hold that the GM commissions were all
income to petitioner.
This is likewise true with regard to commissions from the
Pakistani sales. Respondent contends that the 1975 payments in
the amounts of $334,333.17 and $396,562.22 in connection with the
Pakistani sales are income to petitioner based upon the GM-
Caspian agreement. Amounts equivalent to the 1975 payments to
Mr. Khilnani of 70 percent of the Pakistani commissions were
included in income by petitioner in an amended return and thus
are not at issue. The remaining 30 percent was split between CTC
and Diesel Power on the CTC receipts journal. We agree with
respondent that the portion of Pakistani commissions allocated to
Diesel Power on the CTC receipts journal was petitioner's income.
Page: Previous 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011