- 15 -
subject to regulation under ERISA, but that the payments were in
the nature of a buyout.
Respondent also maintains that the Courts of Appeals'
decisions in Milligan and Gump are erroneous, based on the
following arguments. First, it is argued that both decisions
require that a portion of the taxpayer's compensation be set
aside as earned, to provide a specific fund for the post-
termination payments, else the taxpayer's business activity could
not be considered the "source" of such payments. Thus,
respondent construes both decisions as adding a "salary reduction
agreement" or "direct tracing" requirement to the "derived from
trade or business" standard that is not supported by other case
law or the language of section 1402.
Second, respondent argues that the existence of post-
termination conditions upon the agent's right to receive the
termination payments should play no role in deciding whether such
payments are subject to self-employment tax. Respondent stresses
that the relevant statutory language provides no exclusion from
self-employment tax liability for income which is received only
after the recipient satisfies certain post-termination
obligations. Respondent argues: (1) The fact that a post-
termination obligation exists does not detract from the fact that
an individual's right to receive income directly arises from his
prior business activities; (2) the introduction of any such
"post-termination obligation" exclusion into the statutory
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