- 10 -
The actions taken by Allstate in the case at hand did
not amount to the exercise of power by Allstate as to
the affirmative manner in which petitioner tried to
sell insurance to customers on a day-to-day basis, but
were designed to deal prospectively with various
quality issues and with specific quality problems after
they had arisen. * * * [Id.]
The above analysis holds true in this case. The parties
have stipulated that this case has the same essential facts as
Butts. We find that there are no essential facts in the instant
case distinguishable from those presented in Butts and no legal
arguments presented by respondent in the instant case that were
not addressed and rejected in Butts and Mosteirin. Thus, on the
basis of our reasoning in Butts v. Commissioner, supra, as
adopted and applied in Smithwick v. Commissioner, supra, and
Mosteirin v. Commissioner, supra, we conclude that during the
years in issue petitioners were professionally associated with
Allstate as independent contractors. In short, we decline
respondent's offer to revisit an area that has been so thoroughly
explored.
B. Burden of Proof on Remaining Issues
Unlike the prior Allstate cases,4 the ramifications of
petitioners' being treated as independent contractors--as opposed
to employees--are in dispute. Issue number 2, supra and
discussed below, was raised by respondent in his answer to the
petition. Consequently, respondent bears the burden of proof on
this issue. Rule 142(a).
4 See infra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011