- 16 -
statements that “advances will be deemed a liability of the
[departing] employee” but “generally IMA does not proceed further
with legal process to collect the debt.” We assume that
Mr. Heinz had in mind IMA’s tax reporting position when he made
the statements stipulated. Those statements alone are
insufficient to persuade us that the advance commissions were not
intended to be loans.
C. Conclusion
Petitioner received advance commissions under an obligation
to repay them on demand. IMA’s recourse on default was not
limited to earned commissions. The advance commissions were
loans and, as such, not items of gross income.
II. Innocent Spouse Claim
Petitioners failed to produce any evidence supporting their
claim that petitioner Sandra A. Gales should be relieved of
liability as a so-called innocent spouse. Petitioners also
failed to address that claim on brief. Therefore, we conclude
that petitioners have abandoned that claim and we do not further
address it. See Bernstein v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 1146, 1152
(1954) (holding against the taxpayer with respect to an issue
because, among other things, the taxpayer did not press the issue
on brief), affd. per curiam 230 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1956); Lime
Cola Co. v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 593, 606 (1954) ("Petitioners
in their brief do not argue anything about * * * [the issue];
and, although they do not expressly abandon the issue * * * we
presume they no longer press it.").
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011