- 30 -
Rule 151(e); Remuzzi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1988-8, affd.
without published opinion 867 F.2d 609 (4th Cir. 1989).
Second, we must decide whether the payments in lieu of
renewal commissions received by petitioners in 1990 are subject
to self-employment tax. Petitioners contend that these payments
are analogous to the "termination payments" received by the
taxpayer in Milligan v. Commissioner, 38 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.
1994), revg. T.C. Memo 1992-655, and are, therefore, not subject
to self-employment tax. To the contrary, respondent contends the
payments merely provided a uniform manner of payment of renewal
commissions and retained the characteristics of renewal
commissions. Thus, respondent concludes that the payments are
subject to self-employment tax just as renewal commissions are
subject to self-employment tax. We agree with respondent.
The courts which have examined the issue of whether payments
made in lieu of renewal commissions are subject to self-
employment tax agree that the payments are of the same character
as renewal commissions and are, therefore, subject to self-
employment tax. See Becker v. Tomlinson, 9 AFTR 2d 1408, 62-1
USTC par. 9,446 (S.D. Fla. 1962); Erickson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-585, affd. without published opinion 1 F.3d 1231 (1st
Cir. 1993). In the Becker case, the taxpayer, an insurance
agent, was entitled to receive renewal commissions after the
termination of his contract. An amendment to his original
contract, however, allowed the taxpayer to choose to receive
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011