- 20 -
was required to use when selling insurance, and it is true that
one of several factors we relied on in Butts v. Commissioner,
supra, was the lack of a “‘canned’ sales method”. However, there
is no evidence that Combined ever fired insurance agents merely
for straying from the scripted sales talk; indeed, there is
evidence that Combined's senior management acquiesced in
departures from the scripted presentation so long as products
were not misrepresented. In any event, petitioner’s supervisory
activities constituted a much larger proportion of his work than
sales.
Petitioner was required by the language of the Contract to
abide by rules and regulations of Combined and by directions of
Combined’s authorized personnel. However, in Feivor v.
Commissioner, supra, we found the taxpayer to be an independent
contractor notwithstanding the fact that he entered into an
agreement that obligated him to abide by company regulations and
provisions contained in the district manager’s manual and to
recruit, train, supervise, and motivate agents subject to the
direction of the company. Moreover, in the instant case the
record reveals that petitioner routinely devised his own manner
and means of reaching results without regard to Combined’s
written guidelines, and Combined’s senior management acquiesced
in such departures.
The only significant difference between the instant case, on
the one hand, and the Butts line of cases and Feivor, on the
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