- 30 -
which he participated. Petitioner was compensated for his role
as a salesman, and, as such, his activities and duties were
comparable to those of other salespeople. The record indicates
that commissions paid by EIC conform with those typically paid in
the industry and were paid to petitioner based upon a formal and
consistently applied program.
Respondent argues that EIC has failed to adduce specific
evidence concerning petitioner's actions relative to the sales on
which he earned commissions. Respondent posits that, because
petitioner controlled EIC, he had the ability to pay himself the
full commission on a sale, to the detriment of any other sales-
person who might have worked on the sale. We do not find merit
in respondent's argument. The record indicates that, on several
occasions, petitioner split the commission on a sale with other
salespeople. Moreover, petitioner's ability to take the full
commission on a sale is limited in those circumstances where
other salespeople participated in the sale. A salesperson who is
losing commissions to petitioner would likely seek employment
with another real estate dealer where commissions are not being
appropriated by the business owner.
We are unable to find, however, that the commissions paid by
EIC are reasonable in amount. The commissions paid by EIC for
land sales in 1989 are substantiated by a schedule which lists,
in chronological order, all the land transactions for that year.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011